The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain a plea by a claimed professor seeking directions to the state governments of Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Delhi to take specific steps to combat the anticipated water supply shortage in Delhi, telling the petitioner that "experts" in the three governments were already looking into the issue and that he himself isn't a...
The Delhi High Court recently refused to entertain a plea by a claimed professor seeking directions to the state governments of Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Delhi to take specific steps to combat the anticipated water supply shortage in Delhi, telling the petitioner that "experts" in the three governments were already looking into the issue and that he himself isn't a "super-government".
The person, who claimed to be a visiting faculty in a university in Gurgaon and a National Institute of Fashion Technology, sought directions to the state of Himachal Pradesh to release water through the Western Yamuna Canal on the basis of its Memorandum of Understanding dated Dec 20, 2019, with the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD). It also sought directions to the state of Haryana to take steps to facilitate the water so released, to reach Delhi.
The petitioner claimed that the fact of the water supply shortage was revealed through the reply to an RTI filed by him.
Slamming the petitioner for approaching the Court with what it called a "blackmailing type of petition", the Division bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jasmeet Singh, asked the petitioner his standing to be seeking intervention into the policy-level decision and remarked, "Who are you? In the eyes of law, who are you? You want directions to these states, but high ranking officials in all the 3 governments are already looking into it, are you smarter than all of them?"
Unrelenting, the court asked the petitioner, "Are you the custodian of the state of Delhi?" and asked him establish his bona fides by answers to questions such as his source of livelihood, bank account details, and what kind of work he had done in the field of water policy/conservation. Upon this, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that he had worked with 10 'baulis' across Delhi.
Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner was a professor, however, he would need to take instructions of where the petitioner taught.Chief Justice DN Patel elaborated, "We need to see all this because many times blackmailers are also coming to court."After the petitioner decided to unconditionally withdraw his petition, the court stated, "All the three states have Water Departments and experts who will handle this better than you."