SANJAY YADAV vs DELHI TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD & ORS.

$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4964/2024
SANJAY YADAV ….. Petitioner Through: Mr.Suyash Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
versus
DELHI TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.Arun K.Sharma and Mr.Amiet Andley, Advocate for R-1. Mr.Arun Birbal with Mr.Sanjay Singh, Advocates for DDA. Mr.Sameer Vashisht with Mr.Aman Singh, Advocates for R-3, 4 6 & 7. Mr.Narender Pal Singh with Ms.Anjali, Advocates for R-5. Mr.Jai Sahai Endlaw with Mr.Ashish Kumar, Advocates for R-11 & 12.
% Date of Decision: 05th April, 2024
CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
C.M.No.20327/2024

1.
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.4964/2024 Page 1 of 3

W.P.(C) 4964/2024

3.
Present public interest litigation has been filed challenging the communication dated 18th January, 2023 and seeking directions to the respondents to restore the bus queue shelter at Guru Gobind Singh Marg, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi to its original location.

4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that bus queue shelter at Guru Gobind Singh Marg formed a significant link for crucial bus services connecting various parts of Delhi such as ISBT, Kashmere Gate, ITO, Old Delhi Railway Station and was used by hundreds of commuters, including office goers, businessmen, students etc.

5.
He states that said bus queue shelter was removed by the respondent no.1 at the behest of respondent nos.11 and 12 to give effect to their personal interests.

6.
He states that petitioner has made a representation dated 18th January, 2024 before the respondent nos.1 to 10. He highlights that none of the respondents except respondent no. 5 have replied to the representation made by the petitioner till date.

7.
He emphasises that public transport assists in reduction of environmental pollution and thus aids in securing the constitutionally guaranteed right to life, including the right to clean air and pollution free environment.

8.
Learned counsel for respondent nos.3, 4, 6 and 7 states that they have no connection with the controversy raised in the present writ petition.

9.
Learned counsel for respondent nos. 11 and 12 states that his clients had purchased the land near the alleged bus shelter on 01st September, 2023, whereas the bus shelter was removed on 18th January, 2023. He also states

W.P.(C) No.4964/2024 Page 2 of 3

that the removal of the bus shelter had taken place at the behest of RWA, Karol Bagh.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is contrary to facts and misconceived in law. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
APRIL 5, 2024 KA
W.P.(C) No.4964/2024 Page 3 of 3