Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

'All Permutations & Combinations In Prayer; General Lumpsum Arguments': Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL For Development Of Gautampuri Area

Akshita Saxena
19 Aug 2021 4:44 AM GMT
All Permutations & Combinations In Prayer; General Lumpsum Arguments: Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL For Development Of Gautampuri Area
x

The Delhi High Court yesterday dismissed a PIL seeking development of the Gautampuri area in the national capital, upon observing that the Petitioner had not made even a single representation before the concerned authorities.A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh also remarked that the Petitioner had made all sorts of "permutations and combinations" in the prayer,...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Delhi High Court yesterday dismissed a PIL seeking development of the Gautampuri area in the national capital, upon observing that the Petitioner had not made even a single representation before the concerned authorities.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh also remarked that the Petitioner had made all sorts of "permutations and combinations" in the prayer, and was advancing "general lumpsum arguments" without doing proper research.

"This is a PIL filed before us for drinking water and gardener and flowers...General lumpsum arguments have been advanced by the Petitioner on quality of roads, sewer, etc...Without doing any homework this petition has been filed...No representation is made before the concerned authorities," the Bench recorded in its order.

The petition was filed by Advocate Shrikant Prasad, appearing as party in person. He had sought the following reliefs from the Court:

  • The Respondents should be directed to provide, as soon as possible, clean drinking water to the homes of all the people of Gautampuri area, so that they are not forced to spend hours in the line;
  • SDMC should be directed to start sewer line in the entire area for immediate use so that problem of open defecation is resolved;
  • Horticulture department of SDMC should be ordered to remove illegal possession from all the parks in the area and plant trees, flowers, etc. and keep at least 1 gardener to take care of them, so that the children have the opportunity to live their childhood;
  • PWD Department should be ordered to rebuild all roads of the area with good material and the water coming from the drains across the pits should be curved by making curbs in the side so that people can walk on the roads;
  • Delhi government should reserve seats in all private schools of Delhi for children of all weaker sections of the area so that they can be admitted in private schools in a very easy way without any hesitation and difficulty;
  • Under the Right to Information Act 2005, no information has been given till date, in which it seems to be a problem in which all the department officials are found who are not allowing the funds of this area to reach the people;
  • Delhi government should be ordered that from now onwards the entire list of the amount of fund that is being allotted to concern district nodal authority that the MP /MLA receives along with all the development work done is made in this way that it should be uploaded on the website.

He also prayed that an Inquiry Committee should be set up against the concerned authorities to ascertain information about the work done by them in the last 30 years and action be taken against them under Section 269 of IPC for not providing facilities for so many years.

Upon inquiring from the Petitioner, the Court found that he had not made any representation before the concerned authorities. Accordingly, it ordered:

"The Petitioner is not remediless...He has got efficacious alternate remedy...If there is any violation of Right to Education Act, a petition can be filed by the concerned parents."

The Court however granted liberty to the Petitioner to make a representation before the concerned authorities for appropriate action.

Case Title: Shrikant Prasad v. GNCTD & Ors.

Next Story
Share it