IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  10.
  
  W.P.(C) No. 3419 of 1999 and CM Nos. 4690-91/2005 and C.M. No. 12835 of
  2006
  ??
  ??HEM RAJ and ORS. ..... Petitioners
  ?? Through : Mr. A.K. Sakhuja with
  
  
  with Mr. Sunil Dwivedi, Advocates.
  ?? Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Amicus Curiae.
  ?? Ms. Sweta, Ms. Vibha, Advocates for
  Mr. A.S.?Chandhiok, Sr. Advocate, Amicus Curiae with Mr. Bhagat Singh.
  Mr. Anand Nandan, Advocate for applicant in?CM No. 12835/2006
  
  
Versus
  
  
  COMMISSIONER OF POLICE and ANR. ?. Respondents.
  Through : Mr. P.P. Malhotra, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. Ravi
  Sikri, Advocate for ITPO.
  Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with?Mr. Abhishek Kumar and S.K. Tyagi,
  Advocates for NHAI.
  Mr. Jagmohan Sabharwal, Sr. Advocate with?Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Jha, Advocate for
  DDA?Mr. V.K. Tondon, Advocate for PWD/Revenue/GNCTD.
  Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocate for Ms. Anusuya??Salwan, Advocate for DDA
  Ms. Worthing Kasar, Advocate for BSES.
  Ms. Jyoti Singh with Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr. Dinkar Bajaj, Advocates for UOI.
  Mr. O.P. Saxena, Advocate for Slum and JJ, MCD.
  Mr. Sanjay Poddar, St. Counsel, LA with?Mr. Amar Singh, Dy. Secy. (LandB)
  Mini Pushkarna, St. Counsel, MCD
  with Mr. Rajinder Singh, Advocate.
  Mr. Anoop Bagai, Advocate for MCD.
  Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate for Northern?Rly.
  Mr. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate for DTC.
  Mr. Pushkar Sood and Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocates for DMRC.
  Mr. Rishi Agarwala, Mr. Pratap Chandra,?Advocates for VSNL
  Ms. Meera Bhatia and Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocates for DPCC.
  Ms. Minu Rani, Advocates for BSES RPL,BSEL,YPL and NDPL.
  Mr. R.P.Sharma and Mr. Beenashaw Soni, Advocates for Delhi University.
  Mr. Dinesh Agnani, Advocate for MTNL.
  
  ??
  WITH
  
  
  11. W.P.(C) Nos.1011-15/2005
  ??
  NATHUMAL AHUJA and SONS and ORS. ..... Petitioners
  Through : Mr. A.K. Sakhuja with
  Mr. Sunil Dwivedi, Advocates.??
  
  
Versus
  ???
  
  ?THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI and ORS. ..... Respondents
  Through : Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr.?Abhishek??Kumar, Advocate
  for NHAI.
  Mr. V.K. Tondon, Advocate for PWD/Revenue/GNCTD.
  Mr. Saroj Bidawah, Advocate for DTC.
  Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, St. Counsel, MCD.
  Mr. P.C. Sen, Mr. Dinkar Singh, Advocates for DTTDC
  Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocate for Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Advocate for DDA.
  Ms. Worthing Kasar, Advocate for BSES.
  Mr. Dinkar Bajaj, Advocates for UOI
  Mr. Sanjay Poddar, St. Counsel, LA with Mr. Amar Singh, Dy. Secy. (LandB)
  
  
  Mr. Jagmohan Sabharwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Jha, Advocate for
  DDA.
  Mr. Purushottam Lal, Asst. (G) Gr. II,?behalf of CRRI.
  Mr. Pushkar Sood and Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocates for DMRC.
  Mr. Shivinder Chopra, Advocate for MCD.
  Mr. Dinesh Agnani, Advocate for MTNL.
  
  
  WITH
  
  ??
  ?12. W.P.(C) No. 2648 of 2005 and C.M. Nos.1946/2005 and 4683/2005
  ??
  ?? MOHD. ISLAM ..... Petitioner
  ?? Through : Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Advocate
  ??
  
versus
  
  ??
  ?? MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
  and ANR. ??Respondents
  Through:??Mr. V.K. Tondon, Advocate for PWD/GNCTD/Revenue.
  ?? Mr. Sanjay Poddar, St. Counsel, LA with
  ?? Mr. Amar Singh, Dy. Secy. (LandB)
  ?? Mr. Shivinder Chopra, Advocate for MCD
  ??
  
  WITH
  
  
  
  15. W.P.(C) No.1955-56 of 2006
  ??
  
  MADHU MUKUL TRIPATHI and ANR. .... Petitioners
  Through : Petitioners No. 1 and 2 present in person.
  ??
  
versus
  
  ??
  ??UNION OF INDIA and ORS. ..... Respondents
  Through : Mr. P.S. Sen, Advocate for NDMC.
  Mr. Sanjay Poddar, St. Counsel, LA with
  Mr. Amar Singh, Dy. Secy. (LandB)
  Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan, Advocate for GNCTD.
  Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Advocate for Transport
  Department,?GNCTD.
  
  
  AND?
  
  
  ?18. W.P.(C) No. 8685 of 2006
  ??
  ?? FEDERATION OF NARAINA VIHAR
  RESI.WEL.ASSOC. .... Petitioner
  ?? Through : None
  
  
  ??
  ????? versus?
  ??
  ?? GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ORS. ..... Respondents
  ?? Through :Mr. Sanjay Poddar, St. Counsel,??
  LA with Mr. Amar Singh, Dy. Secy. (LandB)
  ?? Mr. Sunil Malhotra, Advocate for DDA
  ?? Mr. V.K. Tondon, Advocate for PWD.????
  Mr. Dinesh Agnani, Advocate.
  
  
  CORAM:
   HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
   HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
  
   O R D E R
   01.10.2008
  
  
  1. The background to these petitions is set out in the following order
  dated 24th February 2007 passed by this Court:
  ?These petitions have been filed in public interest. They pray for a?mandamus
  directing the respondents to impose restrictions on movement of heavy?and medium
  goods transport vehicle on different roads in Delhi. They also pray?for
  directions for placing restriction on the parking of heavy and medium?transport
  vehicles. They further seek a direction for removal of illegal encroachment from
  the road by the repair workshops, trucks and automobiles.
  
  Although the writ petitions as originally filed sought a direction only?in
  regard to the roads in and around Chattarpur temple, the orders passed by?this
  court from time to time reveal that the issue regarding proper handling
  of?traffic and related problems in the entire city of Delhi has been addressed
  from?time to time. It is also evident from a reading of the orders passed by
  this?court that a committee called the Hemraj Amicus Curiae Committee has
  been?constituted under the orders of this court which comprises the members of
  the?Delhi Bar, officers of different agencies including the Department of
  Traffic,??Govt. of NCT of Delhi with DCP, Traffic as its convener. The Committee
  has?been, it appears, deliberating upon various issues raised for its
  consideration?by the members and submitting interim reports to this court. These
  reports have?formed the basis of different orders which the court has been
  issuing from time?to time with a view to easing the traffic problems, removal of
  encroachments?from the roads and other related matters.
  
  Mr. Malhotra, learned ASG today argued that the petitioners have not?given a
  consolidated list of their grievances that need to be addressed with the?result
  that the petitions have become an unending affair in which
  different?applications are filed at different stages, at times raising issues
  that are?unrelated to the main issue of easing traffic in the city. He urged
  that in?order to give quietus to these proceedings and to enable this court to
  pass?effective orders for resolving problems that may be pointed out by
  the?petitioners, the petitioners or the amicus appointed by this court
  could?identify in a consolidated list their grievances and issues that need to
  be?addressed. He submitted that once these issues and problems are identified,
  the?court could dispose of the petition with appropriate directions so that the
  same?are examined at the appropriate level either by the agencies concerned or
  by a?Committee that may be appointed by the Government for that purpose.
  
  
  
  Mr. Panjwani who happens to be one of the amicus curiae appointed by this?court
  had no difficulty in filing a consolidated list of grievances and issues?that
  need to be resolved in relation to the subject matter of these petitions.??He
  submitted that although these issues have been discussed at various
  stages?before the Committee, an exhaustive list of the same could be provided to
  the?court so that appropriate orders in relation to the same are passed by
  this?court while disposing of these petitions after hearing all concerned.
  
  In the circumstances therefore and keeping in view the submissions made?at the
  bar, we adjourn these petitions to be listed again on 28th March, 2007.?The
  petitioners shall within two weeks from today file a consolidated list
  of?grievances/issues that need to be addressed and that remained to be
  resolved?with a copy to all the counsel representing different government
  agencies in?these proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondents shall have
  two weeks?thereafter to respond to the list.
  
  Post on 28th March, 2007.
  Learned counsel for the parties shall file?their objections to CM 12835/2006 in
  the meantime. Order dasti to all the?counsel under the signature of the court
  master.?
  
  2. Thereafter when the petitions were listed before this Court on 20th
  August 2008 an earnest request was made by learned Amicus Curiae Mr. A.S.
  Chandhiok Senior Advocate that the aforementioned Committee should be permitted
  to meet once again to formulate the outstanding issues on which appropriate
  directions could be issued by this Court. Accepting this request, the following
  order was passed on 20th August 2008:
  ?Mr.V.K. Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the Delhi Police states that the
  DCP (Traffic) will convene a meeting of the Committee with an advance notice to
  all representatives and submit a comprehensive report containing suggestions in
  relation to the outstanding grievances and issues on which appropriate
  directions can be issued by this Court.
  List on 1st October 2008.
  
  A copy of order be given dasti to learned counsel for the Delhi Police under the
  signature of the Court Master.?
  
  3. Mr. V.K. Tandon has on 27th September 2008 filed a copy of the minutes
  of the meeting of the Amicus Curiae Committee held on 19th September 2008. The
  Minutes is four pages long and lists the following grievances as emerging from
  the discussions:
  ?a. Traffic congestion in the entire capital territory of Delhi.
  b. The right of way as envisaged in MPD 2021 needs to be maintained.
  More particularly as provided in chapter-XII of the same.
  c. Rule and regulations be prescribed in respect of procession/rallies
  need to be followed.
  d. Rule and regulations regarding ownership and plying of cycle rickshaw
  for different zones need to be enforced.
  e. Cat-eyes/illuminators need to be installed at maximum places.
  f. Steps to remove encroachment, control and regulate tehbazari, creating
  parking space and running of more CNG/battery operated buses in congested places
  are required.
  g. Regulations and monitoring of auto-rickshaw is required.
  h. Improvement of infrastructure and free flow of traffic near Hospitals,
  Railway Stations, Airport etc needs to be ensured.?
  
  
  
  4. We have heard Mr. A.S.Chandhiok, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr.
  P.P.Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General, Vijay Panjwani, learned
  Advocate, Mr. V.K. Tandon and other counsel for the aprties including the
  learned counsel appearing for the NHAI.
  
  5. It appears to this Court that the continued monitoring of the
  implementation of the earlier directions issued by this Court in these petitions
  is no longer necessary. It is also not practical for this Court to issue general
  directions of a wide nature without reference to specific instances. The Court
  has to be conscious that it must to issue only such directions as are capable of
  being implemented by the authorities. Several directions have already been
  issued in these matters and it is needless to reiterate them. It is incumbent on
  the authorities concerned to implement those directions. If there is any
  specific instance of violation of these directions, it would be open to any of
  the Members of the Amicus Curiae Committee to bring it to the notice of the
  authorities concerned for their prompt remedial action. This Court does not
  think it necessary to keep these petitions pending only for that purpose.
  
  6. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.
  1011-15 of 2005 (Nathumal Ahuja and Sons and Ors. v. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi
  and Ors.) that some of the petitioners in those petitions are petrol pump owners
  who are concerned over the non-removal removal of encroachments on the five
  national highways criss-crossing Delhi. They seek directions to ensure that the
  Right to Way as envisaged in Master Plan for Delhi 2021 be provided. It would
  be open to these Petitioners to bring to the notice of the NHAI the instances
  requiring remedial action.
  
  7. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for NHAI that in respect of
  the encroachments on the Ashram-Badar Pur Road section of NH-2 (Mathura Road) a
  request was made to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Kalkaji to carry out
  the demarcation and take consequential action against the encroachers. A letter
  has been written by the SDM to the NHAI on 20th September 2007 stating that
  there was no provision to furnish it a strip plan. It is directed that the
  concerned officers of the GNCTD will immediately examine this matter and ensure
  that the demarcation takes place so that encroachments can be removed and the
  Right to Way in terms of the MPD 2021 provided. The status report dated 20th
  August 2008 of the NHAI is taken on record. The authorities will extend full
  cooperation to the NHAI in amicably resolving this issue without further delay.
  
  8. With the aforementioned directions and while reiterating the directions
  issued by this Court, these petitions are disposed of. The pending applications
  are also disposed of. Order dasti to the counsel for the parties.
  
  
  CHIEF JUSTICE
  
  
  
  
  S. MURALIDHAR, J
  OCTOBER 01, 2008
  dn
  W.P.(C) No.3419 of 1999
  Page 1 of 10