[BREAKING] "Central Vista essential project of national importance:" Delhi High Court dismisses plea to halt construction with Rs. 1 lakh costs

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to direct the Central government to stop the ongoing construction of the Central Vista Project in the national capital in view of the COVID-19 pandemic (Anya Malhotra v. Union of India). .A Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh ruled that the work currently ongoing is part and parcel of project and of vital importance and can't be seen in isolation. ."..the whole Central Vista Project is an essential project of National importance, where the sovereign functions of Parliament are also to be conducted. Public is vitally interested in this project.," the Court said..The Court stated that once the workers were staying at the site and all facilities had been provided and the Covid-19 protocols were being adhered to, there was no reason for it to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to stop the project. .The Court further observed that petition is not a genuine public interest litigation petition but a "motivated" one and proceeded to impose costs of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioners. ."..challenge to the on-going construction activity with regard to one particular Project, is a pointer to the ill-intent and lack of bonafides of the petitioners in filing the present petition..several other agencies like CPWD, NBCC, DMRC, PWD, IICC and DDA are undertaking construction projects in the territory of National Capital Region of Delhi. It is obvious that petitioners have selectively chosen only one project which is of National importance, at a vital place where Republic Day Celebrations are held in Delhi and is a part and parcel of the larger project, namely, Central Vista Project, legality whereof has already been upheld by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the judgment dated 5th, January 2021.", the order reads. .Noting that the work had to be completed within time-bound schedule, the Court also observed that the project had to completed before November 2021. .The petitioners in the instant case, Anya Malhotra and Sohail Hashmi, had sought a stay on the construction of Central Vista due to the COVID-19 situation in the national capital and the threat posed by the construction work as a potential super spreader..The plea contended that there was no rationale for classifying the Central Vista project as an “essential service”, merely because some executive mandated contractual deadline was ostensibly required to be met..The Central government opposed the plea, stating that the construction activities currently ongoing in and around Rajpath and India Gate do not pertain to the new Parliament building or new offices for the Central government.Instead, the current construction is with respect to public spaces visited by people and tourists at Raj Path and includes building public amenities like new toilet blocks, parking spaces, pedestrian underpasses etc, it was contended. .The Centre also claimed that contrary to the claims of the petitioner, there was a medical facility at the site and that workers will have access to such medical facility.It was also submitted that all the construction activities happen in strict compliance with COVID protocol.It described the PIL as a "facade to disguise something they always wanted to stop under one pretext or the other.".Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra appeared for the petitioner while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Central government. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appeared for the builder, Shapoorji Pallonji..The redevelopment project in the Central Vista area of Lutyens Delhi envisages a new Parliament House, a new residential complex that will house the Prime Minister and the Vice-President, as well as several new office buildings and a Central Secretariat to accommodate Ministry offices..A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court had, on January 5, given its green signal to the project, rejecting a batch of petitions challenging the scheme for alleged violation of land use and environmental norms..Read the Judgement: