Fighting air pollution: Justice for a better tomorrow:

Air Pollution

CASE NO: CM APPL. Nos.60541-60544/2023

TITLE: RAM PAL vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH L&DO AND ORS.,

COURT: The High Court of New Delhi

DECISION DATE: November 22 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO & HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Introduction

The legal case, with the title “RAM PAL vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH L&DO AND ORS.,” was heard in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, and the decision was rendered on the 22nd of November, 2023. The case was filed as W.P.(C) 15147/2023, with additional connected applications.

The petitioner, RAM PAL, represented by Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, Senior Advocate, along with a legal team, brought forward a writ petition outlining specific prayers. The respondents, UNION OF INDIA THROUGH L&DO AND ORS., were represented by Mr. Chetan Sharma, Additional Solicitor General, and other legal representatives.

The petitioner’s concerns were related to the demolition of a JJ Cluster near DPS Mathura Road, New Delhi. The petitioner challenged the exemption granted by the Central Air Quality Management (CAQM) from the GRAP III restrictions for the demolition. The petitioner also raised issues regarding the legality of the demolition order, alleging a violation of Articles 14, 17, 19, and 21.

Brief Facts

In the case of, RAM PAL v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH L&DO AND ORS., the petitioner, RAM PAL, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi challenging the demolition of a JJ Cluster (Jhuggi Jhopri Cluster) near DPS Mathura Road, New Delhi. The petitioner was represented by Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, Senior Advocate, and a legal team.

The petitioner contested the validity of an exemption granted by the Central Air Quality Management (CAQM) on November 21, 2023. This exemption allowed the respondents to proceed with the demolition without adhering to the GRAP III (Graded Response Action Plan) restrictions. The petitioner argued that the exemption was improperly granted and abused by the authorities, and it was being used to demolish shelters belonging to a notified and protected JJ Basti (slum settlement).

Mr. Ghosh, representing the petitioner, contended that the demolition was being rushed without proper rehabilitation of the affected individuals, including the petitioner. He pointed out that the order allegedly justifying the demolition was issued on August 23, 2019, and there had been no adequate efforts for rehabilitation over the four years since.

The petitioner sought various reliefs, including the quashing of the exemption, challenging the demolition order as violative of constitutional articles, and mandating the respondents to rehabilitate the affected persons in accordance with applicable laws and court directions.

However, the court, in its decision dated November 22, 2023, dismissed the writ petition and connected applications. The court upheld the validity of the exemption, emphasizing compliance with court orders, including GRAP III restrictions. The decision also referred to previous orders related to the removal of unauthorized constructions in the specified area and the need for compliance to avoid contempt proceedings.

Issue

The main issue in the case of RAM PAL v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH L&DO AND ORS., revolves around the demolition of a JJ Cluster (Jhuggi Jhopri Cluster) near DPS Mathura Road, New Delhi, and the validity of the exemption granted by the Central Air Quality Management (CAQM) from GRAP III (Graded Response Action Plan) restrictions for the demolition.

The petitioner, RAM PAL, raised several key issues in the writ petition:

Validity of Exemption:

The petitioner challenged the validity of the exemption granted by CAQM, arguing that it was improperly granted and abused by the authorities. The petitioner contended that the exemption, which allowed the demolition to proceed without adhering to GRAP III restrictions, was being misused to demolish shelters in a protected JJ Basti.

Haste in Demolition:

The petitioner argued that the demolition process was being conducted hastily without proper rehabilitation of the affected individuals, including the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that the order justifying the demolition was issued on August 23, 2019, and there had been no adequate efforts for rehabilitation over the four years since.

Constitutional Violations:

The petitioner alleged that the order for demolition, issued on November 17, 2023, violated constitutional principles, including Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 17 (Abolition of Untouchability), 19 (Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.), and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty).

Rehabilitation Mandate:

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to rehabilitate the affected persons in accordance with the DUSIB Act and specific legal provisions. The petitioner emphasized the need for compliance with previous court directions related to rehabilitation policies.

Court Analysis

The court, in its decision dated November 22, 2023, analyzed the various contentions presented by the petitioner, RAM PAL, in W.P.(C) 15147/2023, challenging the demolition of a JJ Cluster near DPS Mathura Road, New Delhi. Here is a breakdown of the court’s analysis and decision:

Compliance with Court Orders:

The court emphasized the importance of compliance with previous court orders, specifically referring to a contempt petition (Cont.Cas.(C) 519/2012). The court noted that the demolition was pursued in response to the order dated January 12, 2011, passed in W.P.(C) No. 3927/2020 and W.P.(C) No. 1512/1984. The court underscored the need for the removal of unauthorized encroachments and constructions, as directed in its previous orders.

Exemption from GRAP III Restrictions:

The court addressed the petitioner’s challenge to the validity of the exemption granted by CAQM from GRAP III restrictions. It cited an observation from a different contempt petition (Cont.Cas.No.1697/2023) where the court stated that orders must be complied with, subject to GRAP III restrictions and exemptions as and when granted. The court indicated that the exemption, in this case, had been granted in respect of GRAP III restrictions, making the demolition permissible.

Rehabilitation and Previous Court Orders:

The petitioner had raised concerns about the haste in demolition without adequate rehabilitation, citing a previous order from March 18, 2019 (Ajay Maken v. Union of India). The court, however, did not find merit in these contentions, noting that the issue of rehabilitation had been settled by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 9285/2018, upheld by the court in LPA No.115/2019.

Constitutional Violations:

The court rejected the petitioner’s claims that the demolition order violated constitutional articles, including Articles 14, 17, 19, and 21. The judgment did not elaborate on the specific reasons for dismissing these constitutional arguments.

Dismissal of Writ Petition and Connected Applications:

Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition and connected applications. The judgment stated that the connected prayers lacked merit, both for the reasons provided and due to the settled nature of the rehabilitation issue in previous court orders.

Conclusion

In summary, the court’s decision was in favor of the respondents, upholding the validity of the exemption from GRAP III restrictions and affirming the necessity of compliance with court orders related to the removal of unauthorized constructions. The court found the connected prayers of the petitioner to be without merit and dismissed the writ petition and applications accordingly.