Disposed

Jindal Public School v. Govt.of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC24 May 2018W.P.(C)/5747/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order directing a school to remove a slab covering a drain. The bench directed the petitioner to approach the National Green Tribunal regarding specific circumstances before the interim order expired, granting protection pending such approach.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach National Green Tribunal by 06.07.2018; status quo maintained pending approach.

Jindal Public School Vs Govt.of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Environment and Pollution | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 5747/2016 & CM APP No.23689/2016 JINDAL PUBLIC SCHOOL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Prag Chawla with Mr. Sudeep Sudan, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Adv. for R-1, 2 & 4/GNCTD. Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Adv. for R-3.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 24.05.2018

¶10

Via this writ petition, challenge is laid to the order dated 23.5.2016, passed by respondent No.2. Briefly, by virtue of this order, the petitionerschool has been directed to remove the slab placed on the subject nallah/ drain, which is used to access the building where the petitionerschool is housed.

¶11

The justification provided by respondent No.1, 2 & 4/GNCTD for issuing the impugned order, is that pursuant to the judgment dated 13.1.2015, passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.6/2012, titled: Manoj Kumar vs. Union of India , it became incumbent for them to uncover nallahs /drains.

¶12

Furthermore, Ms. Taneja, who appears for respondent No.1, 2 & 4/GNCTD, submits that it is difficult to access the nallah/drain for the purposes of cleaning and de-silting and, therefore, the need to issue the W.P.(C) No.5747/2016 Pg.1 of 3

¶13

impugned order.

¶14

3.1 That apart, it is submitted by the learned counsel that there are other avenues available to gain access to the petitioner school.

¶15

On the other hand, Mr. Chawla, who appears for the petitionerschool, says that these are the matters, which are covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in a matter concerning his client.

¶16

4.1 For this purpose, my attention has been drawn to Annexure-B, wherein, the judgment dated 25.7.2002, passed in W.P.(C) 2871/2002, titled: Mr. Laxmikant Sharma Ors. vs. The N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors., has been appended.

¶17

4.2 Mr. Chawla says that because the slab was placed on the subject nallah/ drain more than 26 years ago, such like nallahs/ drains need not be uncovered as they do not fall within the purview of the directions issued by National Green Tribunal in Manoj Kumar’s case.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner-school needs to approach the National Green Tribunal and bring to its notice, the particular circumstances, obtaining in its case, which would include the observations made by the Division Bench in the aforementioned judgment.

¶19

5.1 In case the petitioner-school approaches the National Green Tribunal, as indicated above, on or before 06.07.2018, the status quo as obtaining today, would continue to operate with regard to the subject nallah/ drain. The respondents will not take any coercive measures against the petitionerschool in the meanwhile.

¶20

W.P.(C) No.5747/2016

¶21

Pg.2 of 3

¶22

5.2 In case the petitioner-school fails to approach the National Green Tribunal within the time frame set out above, the interim protection granted by this Court will automatically stand dissolved. In such circumstances, the respondents will be free to take action against the petitioner-school in accordance with law.

¶23

5.3 Furthermore, it is made clear that the National Green Tribunal will be free to vary or revoke the interim protection granted by this Court upon hearing the concerned parties in the matter.

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶25

Pending application will stand closed.

¶26

Dasti .

¶27

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶28

MAY 24, 2018 /pmc

¶29

W.P.(C) No.5747/2016

¶30

Pg.3 of 3

Jindal Public School v. Govt.of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jindal Public School v. Govt.of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Busibells Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import)Air Cargo

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Rikon Impex Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import, & Anr.

Pramod Singh Vs North MCD and Ors.

L & T Hydrocarbon Engineering Ltd. Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Raj Singh & Ors. Vs Lt. Governor & Ors.

Arya College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Contitech India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CIRCLE-6(2), New Delhi & Ors.

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Yatin Ghai Vs Union of India & Anr.

Pramod Mittal through Gpa Holder Uday Pratap Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Procter & Gamble Home Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ht Media Ltd. and Anr. Vs Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity and Anr.

Parikshit Mahipal Vs the Lawyers Chambers Allotment Committee & Ors.