IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  
  
  
  W.P.(C) 380/2012
  
  
  
  NYAYA BHOOMI ..... Petitioner
  
  Through: In person.
  
  
  
  
versus
  
  
  
  GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents
  
  Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum and Ms. Sana Ansari, Adv. for GNCTD.
  
  CORAM:
  
   HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
  
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
  
  
  
   O R D E R
  
   15.03.2012
  
  
  
  1. This petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation invites
  attention to the traffic snarls between Ambedkar Nagar and Moolchand
  Hospital, stated to be attributable to the BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)
  corridor developed on the said stretch and which became operational in
  April, 2008. Out of the existing road, a separate corridor has been
  carved out for buses and in which corridor other vehicles are not
  permitted to ply. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said
  project instead of improving/smoothening the flow of traffic, has
  resulted in the traffic in the non-bus lane moving at a snail?s pace. It
  is urged that the large number of other vehicles is far disproportionate
  to a small number of buses which ply on the exclusive corridor, reducing
  further the already insufficient road space for other vehicles. It is the
  plea of the petitioner that the said experiment has not encouraged any of
  the other
  
  W.P.(C) 380/2012 page 1 of 7
  
  vehicle owners to switch over to buses which are allowed to move at a
  quicker pace in the exclusive corridor. The petitioner in this petition
  seeks a direction permitting plying of all mechanized vehicles also on
  the lane meant for buses.
  
  2. There has been a considerable outcry in the city on the aforesaid
  aspect. Notice of the petition was as such issued. Though no response to
  the petition was filed but the counsel for the respondent Govt. of NCT of
  Delhi, during a earlier hearing has handed over order i) dated 30th
  November, 2005 of the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 13029/1985; ii) brief
  report on BRT Corridor; iii) the Design Summary of the BRT Corridor
  prepared by TRIPP, IIT Delhi and RITES Ltd.; iv) an Evaluation Report of
  February, 2009 of M/s Embarq of the BRT Corridor; and, v) a copy of the
  Pre and Post ISS Installation Performance Study of the said corridor. The
  counsel for the respondent GNCTD on the basis of the said documents
  argued before us that the BRT Corridor Project was conceived after proper
  studies and has been reported to be successful.
  
  3. The order aforesaid of the Supreme Court, is not germane to the
  issue before us.
  
  4. Since even after the evaluation done in February, 2009 more than
  three years have elapsed and the number of vehicles in the city continues
  to gallop day by day, we enquired from the counsel as to was there not a
  
  need for another evaluation. Our own experience as residents of the city has also shown that the travel time on the said stretch has considerably
  gone up since the said corridor was introduced. The common perception of
  those stranded
  
  W.P.(C) 380/2012 page 2 of7
  
  in the traffic jams on the said stretch is of the bus corridor being
  highly under utilized and the number of persons, even if benefitted from
  the comparatively fast movement in the exclusive bus corridor being far
  smaller in comparison to those inconvenienced from it. The representative
  of the petitioner has also argued that the vehicles stuck in the
  resultant traffic jams not only waste valuable fuel but also add to the
  pollution.
  
  5. We also find that the bus stops along the said corridor are like
  islands on the road with the persons desiring to access the same being
  required to cross the portion of the road meant for other vehicles and
  which not only leads to slowing down of the traffic therein but also is
  hazardous to the bus users.
  
  6. We may record that we have also been informed that several of the
  judicial officers posted at the Saket Courts who have to access the
  Courts through the said corridor have to leave their residences early to
  provide for the long travel time on the said corridor. A large number of
  other citizen groups have also been representing in this regard and there
  have been demands for scrapping of the BRT Corridor Project.
  
  7. We may yet further record that though the BRT Corridor Project was
  to extend two other portions also but the Government itself appears to
  have had a re-think on the same and further development is not found to
  be taking place.
  
  8. However our observations aforesaid are but our musings and on our
  own perceptions and it is well nigh possible that the reality may be
  otherwise and the project has served the citizens at large, even if to
  the
  
  W.P.(C) 380/2012 page 3 of 7
  
  detriment of some citizens. We on our own are unable to take a decision
  thereon inspite of the passionate pleas of the representative of the
  petitioner.
  
  9. We had in the circumstances, during the hearing yesterday suggested
  to the counsel for the GNCTD that appropriate scientific study be
  undertaken by an expert agency like the Central Road Research Institute
  on all aspects including aforesaid of the BRT Corridor Project. Though
  the counsel for the GNCTD under instructions had suggested the names of
  RITES Ltd. and IIT, Delhi but since they were involved in designing
  thereof, we had expressed reservation in entrusting the said studies to
  them. The matter was as such adjourned to today to enable the counsel for
  the GNCTD to take instructions. The counsel for the GNCTD has today
  
  handed over copies of the letters written by the Transport Department of GNCTD to Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) and National Highway
  Authority of India (NHAI) seeking proposals from each of them for
  conducting a survey of the said project.
  
  10. The representative of the petitioner has stated that the petitioner
  be also allowed to be associated in the survey/study to be so conducted
  and to place before the said authorities the relevant data, material,
  statistics collected by the petitioner. We find this request reasonable
  and allow the petitioner to participate in the survey/study.
  
  11. The representative of the petitioner has further sought immediate
  directions allowing other vehicles also to ply on lane reserved
  exclusively for the buses. We, at this stage and without any expert
  finding before us as to whether the said BRT corridor is for the benefit
  of the citizens or not, are
  
  W.P.(C) 380/2012 page 4 of 7
  
  not inclined to issue any such directions. However we are of the opinion
  that during the course of the survey, comparative studies be done by
  allowing other vehicles also on the lane reserved exclusive for the
  buses.
  
  12. We accordingly direct:-
  
  A. CRRI and NHAI to within two weeks submit their proposals as sought
  vide letters dates 14th March, 2012 of the Transport Department of the
  GNCTD, for carrying out the survey/study to report to this Court as to
  whether the BRT corridor has served the purpose which it was intended to
  achieve; whether it has resulted in slowing the traffic movement of
  vehicles other than the buses and if so, the impact thereof on
  consumption of fuel and environment; even if the said corridor has
  expedited the movement of buses, the proportion of the commuters who
  have benefited therefrom to the commuters who have/are suffering; the
  viability/desirability of having the bus stops as islands on the road,
  with no access thereto; etc. These are few of the specifics which come to
  our mind. Otherwise we trust the expertise of the said agencies to report
  as to whether the project has been good or bad for the city. The
  Transport Department of the GNCTD to communicate this order to CRRI and
  NHAI for compliance;
  
  B. The Transport Department shall also within one week of the receipt
  of the proposals from CRRI and NHAI, evaluate the same and appoint either
  both CRRI and NHAI or either of them
  
  
  
  W.P.(C) 380/2012 page 5 of 7
  
  for carrying out the survey/study and preparing the report aforesaid;
  
  C. The agency so appointed shall within six weeks of the appointment
  carry out the survey/study aforesaid and submit its report to this Court;
  
  D. The petitioner as well as other representative bodies of the
  citizens shall be entitled to place their views duly supported by data
  and material before the agency so appointed and which shall be duly
  considered by the said agency;
  
  E. We direct all other governmental agencies including Police
  (including Traffic Police), MCD, NDMC, Central Pollution Control Board,
  Delhi State Pollution Control Committee, PWD to forthwith render all
  assistance and otherwise facilitate the agency so appointed in carrying
  out the survey and preparing its report;
  
  F. The agency so appointed shall during the course of survey be
  entitled to regulate the vehicular movement on the aforesaid stretch as
  it may desire from time to time including by allowing plying of vehicles
  other than buses on the corridor reserved exclusively for the buses;
  
  G. The agency so appointed shall hold consultations with the Traffic
  Police and other agencies whose experience and views are likely to have
  bearing on the matter;
  
  
  
  W.P.(C) 380/2012 page 6 of 7
  
  H. The agency so appointed shall be entitled to approach this Court
  for assistance if any required in preparing the report within the time
  aforesaid.
  
  13. The report be filed before this Court on or before 16th May, 2012.
  
  14. List on 16th May, 2012.
  
  Copy of this order be given dasti under signature of court master
  to the counsel for the respondent.
  
  
  
  
  
  ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
  
  MARCH 15, 2012
  
  pp
  
  
  
  W.P.(C) 380/2012 page 7 of 7
  
  
  
  $ 13.