The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition for constructing a foot-over bridge at the Rajputana Rifles Regimental Centre, stating it was up to authorities to determine its necessity. The petition cited delays since 2010, impacting soldiers and civilians, while the court emphasized the need to balance administrative duties with public welfare without judicial interference.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (Jan 8th) refused to entertain a petition seeking the construction of a foot-over bridge (FOB) at the Rajputana Rifles Regimental Centre in Delhi Cantonment. The plea aimed to benefit both Indian Army soldiers and the general public.
A bench led by Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gerela disposed of the petition, instructing relevant authorities to assess the necessity of the bridge. The court observed,
“We are not convinced that any specific directions should be issued to the authorities.”
The petition, filed by the NGO Centre for Youth Culture Law & Environment through Advocates Paras Tyagi and Aditya Tanwar, alleged that the authorities had been delaying the public welfare project. The petitioners argued that the project was deemed necessary based on expert assessments but remained stalled due to societal, political, and administrative challenges.
The plea highlighted that the Indian Army was unable to construct the FOB independently due to land ownership issues. The petitioners contended that the statutory bodies responsible for the bridge’s construction had neglected the matter since 2010, displaying disregard for the “rule of law and contempt of court.”
The petitioners argued that the delay in constructing the FOB had caused undue hardship for soldiers, their families, and civilians in the area.
“If the matter is further neglected, those affected will continue to suffer from inhumane conditions,”
they stated.
The petition also emphasized the humiliation and inconvenience faced due to the prolonged inaction. It called for a policy to address public welfare projects with military and civilian benefits, particularly in areas like Delhi Cantonment.
While disposing of the case, the court refrained from issuing specific directions, leaving it to the authorities to evaluate the project’s feasibility. The bench underscored the importance of balancing administrative and public welfare concerns without judicial overreach.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
