India / Delhi HC dismisses plea to stop Central Vista work, imposes ₹1L fine on petitioners

New Delhi: Amid much uproar by the opposition parties over the Central Vista project, the Delhi High Court dismissed a plea seeking direction to suspend all construction activity in view of the second wave of the COVID19 pandemic. 

The petition was filed citing the reasons that workers involved in the construction work can be infected with Coronavirus.

The court imposed Rs 1 lakh fine on petitioners & says it's a motivated plea. It was not a PIL

A bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh refused to stop the construction and fined the petitioners Rs 1 lakh. “Since workers at the project at staying on sight, no question of suspending the work arises,” the court said.

The concern DDMA order in question nowhere prohibits construction work, the Court further added.

On May 17, the judges had reserved their verdict after hearing both sides for more than three hours. A joint petition was filed by Anya Malhotra, who works as a translator, and Sohail Hashmi, a historian and documentary filmmaker. They argued that the Central Vista project was not an essential activity and can be put on hold in light of the pandemic.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehra, representing the Centre, had said that the petition was a “facade” and a “disguise” to stall the project which they always wanted to stop. The petitioners told the court they were only interested in the safety of workers at the site and citizens living in the area.

The Court further noted that the work at Central Avenue has to be completed before November and said time is essence of the contract. “The work has to be completed within time-bound schedule,” the bench said, adding once the workers at staying at the site and “all the facilities have been provided, COVID-19 protocols are adhered to and COVID-19 appropriate behaviour is being followed,” there is no reason for the court to stop the project.

“This a motivated petition preferred by the petitioner and is not a genuine Public Interest Litigation,” said the court, while imposing a cost on the petitioners.