Disposed

D5 and D8 Residents Welfare Association Model Town New Delhi v. Horticulture Department of Municipal Corporation Delhi New Delhi

NGT19 Nov 2024IA No. 577/2024 in Original Application No. 1150/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal listed a grievance application challenging the allotment of an ornamental park for religious functions for future hearings and allowed interim interim applications regarding impleadment and document filing.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No. 474/2024 allowed; I.A. No. 577/2024 allowed; Main OA listed for 10.03.2025.

D5 and D8 Residents Welfare Association Model Town New Delhi vs Horticulture Department of Municipal Corporation Delhi New Delhi — NGT (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. 1

¶2

Item No. 02

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 1150/2024 (I.A. No. 433/2024, I.A. No. 474/2024 & I.A. No. 577/2024)

¶5

D5 & D8 Residents Welfare Association, Model Town, New Delhi

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Horticulture Department of MCD, Keshavpuram Zone Respondent

¶9

Date of hearing: 19.11.2024

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Applicant: Mr. Abhishek Shivpuri, Adv.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

In this original application, the applicant being Resident Welfare Association of D5 & D8 of Model Town, New Delhi has raised a grievance against the permitting holding of religious functions every year at Jawahar Park located in Block – D, Model Town – 3, Ward No. 68, Keshavpuram Zone, New Delhi – 110 006 by the respondent Horticulture Department of Municipal Corporation Delhi, Keshavpuram Zone.

¶14

Counsel for the applicant during the course of argument has referred to the communication by the Assistant Director, Horticulture dated 05.04.2019 (Page 73) to show that the park is maintained as Ornamental Park. He has also referred to the circular of North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Horticulture Department dated 22.08.2013 providing as under:-

¶15

“2. If park which is not booked online, then following additional guidelines are as under:-

¶16

(i) Only those parks will be booked in which Puja or some religious function is being held for atleast last 5 years. (proof of booking is to be submitted)

¶17

(ii) No new park will be booked. (iii) No ornamental park will be booked.”

¶18

¶19

Referring to the above, he has submitted that the park in question being an ornamental park cannot be booked for any other purpose. He has also relied upon the guidelines for sponsorship/adoption of Municipal Parks filed as Annexure A – 14, which provides for three period of adoption and states as follows:-

¶20

“Adoption Period: The adoption/sponsorship will be allowed for three years but each M.O.U will be reviewed after one year. The Department will initiate action for fresh M.O.U/Agreement atleast six months before the expiry of the existing M.O.U. so as to ensure smooth transfer of the site to the new party on the due date. ”

¶21

Relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2009) 17 SCC 683, he has submitted that the park in question could not be allotted for more than 10 days in a month. In this regard he has relied upon the direction of the Supreme Court in paragraph 8 (1) which reads as under:-

¶22

“ (1) The use of parks by MCD, NDMC and DDA for the purposes mentioned above shall not be permitted more than 10 days in a month. In other words, when any of the designated parks is used for such purposes 10 days in a month, no function thereafter shall be permitted during the remaining 20/21 days. ”

¶23

In the background of the aforesaid provision, he has referred to the communication dated 27.08.2021 issued by the Deputy Director, Horticulture, NDMC, accepting the prayer for the adoption of the park by mutual agreement for 3 years by the private respondent herein and has submitted that three years period has expired. He has submitted that now the park is being used/allotted for religious functions for more than 10 days in a month in violation of the policy, guidelines and the order of the Supreme Court.

¶24

Initially the applicant had not impleaded the Model Town Dharmik Leela Committee against which the allegations have been made, therefore

¶25

¶26

now I.A. No. 474/2024 has been filed for impleadment. The Prayer for impleadment is allowed and I.A No. 474/2024 is disposed of. Applicant is directed to correct the cause title and file an amended memo of parties within three days.

¶27

On impleadment of the private respondent, let notice be issued to the respondents for filing their response/reply by way of affidavit at least one week before the next date of hearing through e-filing. If any respondent directly files the reply without routing it through his advocate then the said respondent will remain virtually present to assist the Tribunal. Applicant is directed to serve the respondents and file the affidavit of service at least one week before the next hearing date. Applicant is also permitted to serve the respondents by Dasti service and file affidavit of service.

¶28

List on 10.03.2025

¶29

I.A. No. 577/2024 has been filed by the applicant seeking permission to place on record the additional documents. The OA is at the preliminary stage, hence on due consideration, I.A. No. 577/2024 is allowed and documents are taken on record.

¶30

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶31

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶32

November 19, 2024 Original Application No. 1150/2024 (I.A. No. 433/2024, I.A. No. 474/2024 & I.A. No. 577/2024) AS..

¶33

D5 and D8 Residents Welfare Association Model Town New Delhi v. Horticulture Department of Municipal Corporation Delhi New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D5 and D8 Residents Welfare Association Model Town New Delhi v. Horticulture Department of Municipal Corporation Delhi New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Arun Kumar Dutta vs the State of West Bengal

Suo Motu Fissh Kill at Lingambudhi Lake in Mysuru vs Central Pollution Control Board Rep. by Its Chairman

Haripriya Patel vs State of Odisha

Moti Singh Shekhawat vs State of Rajasthan

Kundan Veer Singh Bhullar and Ors. vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Shri Omprakash Somani vs 1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary

Shri Omprakash Somani vs 1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary

Shri Omprakash Somani vs 1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary

Raman Sharma vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 105/2024 in Original Application No. 710/2017 of Shailesh Singh vs Sheela Hospital & Trauma Center

Vikram Singh Saini vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 27/2024 in Original Application No. 772/2022 of Mohan Chandra Sati vs

D5 and D8 Residents Welfare Association Model Town New Delhi vs Horticulture Department of Municipal Corporation Delhi New Delhi

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 106/2024 in Original Application No. 327/2024 of Hubtown Limited vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change