RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS

p. 578 Copy page pinpoint

A freedom of contract. In Villianur Iyarkkai383, this Court discussed this position of law in the following terms: “113. As far as second preliminary objection regarding locus standi of the appellant to challenge the award of the contract for the development of the Pondicherry Port to Respondent 11 is concerned, this Court finds that the contract assailed in the writ petitions is purely commercial in nature. Neither the parties, which had participated in the process of selection of the consultant/developer nor one of those, which had expressed desire to develop the Pondicherry Port but was not selected, has come forward to challenge the selection procedure adopted by the Government of Pondicherry or the selection of Respondent 11 as developer of the Pondicherry Port.

114. The question of locus standi in the matter of awarding the contract has been considered by this Court in BALCO D Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India384. This Court, after review of law on the point, has made following observations in para 88 of the judgment: “88. It will be seen that whenever the Court has interfered and given directions while entertaining PIL it has mainly been E where there has been an element of violation of Article 21 or of human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged who are unable to come to court due to some disadvantage. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by the courts. We F may, however, add that public interest litigation was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. No doubt a person personally aggrieved by any such decision, which he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a court of law, but, a public interest litigation at the G behest of a stranger ought not to be entertained. Such a litigation cannot per se be on behalf of the poor and the downtrodden, unless the court is satisfied that there has been violation of

383 (supra at 190) 384 (2002) 2 SCC 333 H

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 579 ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

Article 21 and the persons adversely affected are unable to approach the court.” From the passage quoted above it is clear that the only ground on which a person can maintain a PIL is where there has been an element of violation of Article 21 or human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged who are unable to come to the court due to some disadvantage.” (emphasis supplied)

394Copy pinpoint394. As long as there is fair play in Government action, it is no one’s concern to assail a commercial transaction by levelling vague and unsubstantiated allegations. The genesis of a public interest litigation lies in public interest; and public interest lies in vindicating the rights of those who lack the wherewithal to reach the Court to remedy injustice against them. The tool of public interest litigation or “social interest litigation”, as it is more appropriately called, was devised to open the doors of the constitutional Courts for remedying glaring injustices against humans, that is, for securing constitutional rights. It was never meant to transform the constitutional Court as a superlative authority over day-to-day governance. Judicial time is not meant for undertaking a roving enquiry or to adjudicate upon unsubstantiated flaws or shortcoming in policy matters of Government of the day and politicise the same to appease the dissenting group of citizens – be it in the guise of civil society or a political outfit.

395Copy pinpoint395. The foregoing comments are not because the Courts feel burdened by untenable and frivolous claims but to highlight that Court time saved would be time-earned to be best spent on more deserving claims of have-nots due to long incarceration, affecting liberty, denial of pension and salary, motor accident claims, land acquisition compensation, including genuine corporate resurrection and revival to benefit large number of workmen and investors etc. The list of such deserving litigation is unending. We need to say so because we had to spend considerable time and energy on this matter (lest the petitioners entertain a feeling of having been denied a fair opportunity), despite the pandemic situation, which at the end, we find to be devoid of substance.

396Copy pinpoint396. We may usefully advert to the exposition in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India385. In paragraph Nos. 230 to 235 of the reported decision, the Court noted thus: 385 (supra at 132) H

p. 580 Copy page pinpoint

A “230. Public interest litigation (PIL) was an innovation essentially to safeguard and protect the human rights of those people who were unable to protect themselves. With the passage of time PIL jurisdiction has been ballooning so as to encompass within its ambit subjects such as probity in public life, granting of largesse in the form of licences, protecting environment and the like. But the balloon should not be inflated so much that it bursts. Public interest litigation should not be allowed to degenerate to becoming publicity interest litigation or private inquisitiveness litigation.

231. While exercising jurisdiction in PIL cases the court has not forsaken its duty and role as a court of law dispensing justice in accordance with law. It is only where there has been a failure on the part of any authority in acting according to law or in non-action or acting in violation of the law that the court has stepped in. No directions are issued which are in conflict with any legal provisions. Directions have, in appropriate cases, been given where the law is silent and inaction would result in violation of the fundamental rights or other legal provisions.

232. While protecting the rights of the people from being violated in any manner utmost care has to be taken that the court does not transgress its jurisdiction. There is, in our constitutional framework a fairly clear demarcation of powers. The court has come down heavily whenever the executive has sought to impinge upon the court’s jurisdiction.

F 233. At the same time, in exercise of its enormous power the court should not be called upon to or undertake governmental duties or functions. The courts cannot run the Government nor can the administration indulge in abuse or non- use of power and get away with it. The essence of judicial review is a constitutional fundamental. The role of the higher judiciary under the Constitution casts on it a great obligation as the sentinel to defend the values of the Constitution and the rights of Indians. The courts must, therefore, act within their judicially permissible limitations to uphold the rule of law and harness their power in public interest. It is precisely for this reason that it has been consistently held by this Court that in

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 581 ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

matters of policy the court will not interfere. When there is a A valid law requiring the Government to act in a particular manner the court ought not to, without striking down the law, give any direction which is not in accordance with law. In other words the court itself is not above the law.

234. In respect of public projects and policies which are initiated by the Government the courts should not become an approval authority. Normally such decisions are taken by the Government after due care and consideration. In a democracy welfare of the people at large, and not merely of a small section of the society, has to be the concern of a responsible Government. If a considered policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it will not be in public interest to require the court to go into and investigate those areas which are the function of the executive. For any project which is approved after due deliberation the court should refrain from being asked to review the decision just because a petitioner in filing a PIL alleges that such a decision should not have been taken because an opposite view against the undertaking of the project, which view may have been considered by the Government, is possible. When two or more options or views are possible and after considering them the Government takes a policy decision it is then not the function of the court to go into the matter afresh and, in a way, sit in appeal over such a policy decision.

235. What the petitioner wants the Court to do in this case is precisely that. The facts enumerated hereinabove clearly indicate that the Central Government had taken a decision to construct the dam as that was the only solution available to it for providing water to the water-scarce areas. It was known at that time that people will be displaced and will have to be rehabilitated. There is no material to enable this Court to come to the conclusion that the decision was mala fide. A hard decision need not necessarily be a bad decision.” (emphasis supplied)

397Copy pinpoint397. The apprehension of the petitioners regarding percentage contracts is also unfounded, for the same is taken care of by Manual for H

p. 582 Copy page pinpoint

A Procurement of Consultancy & Other Services, 2017386 released by Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance. Chapter-3 of the Manual provides for “Risks and Mitigations” relating to percentage contracts. The risk is stated thus: “Bias against Economic solutions: Since the percentage payment is linked to the total cost of the project, in the case of architectural or engineering services, percentage contracts implicitly lack incentive for economic design and are hence discouraged.” The corresponding mitigation measure is stated thus: “Therefore, the use of such a contract for architectural services is recommended only if it is based on a fixed target cost and covers precisely defined services.” Thus, there is no absolute prohibition on percentage contracts. The only requirement is mitigation which can be done by a fixed target cost. In the present case, by releasing a subsequent corrigendum, the consultancy fee was capped by the project proponent irrespective of the final cost of the project and thus, no apprehension of lack of economic design survives. DESIGN/CONCEPT COMPETITION

398Copy pinpoint398. The contention regarding conduct of a design competition before finalizing the design of the proposed structure can, at best, be understood as a suggestion. For, there is no legally binding duty upon the project proponent to conduct a design competition for a project of this nature.

399Copy pinpoint399. Chapter 7 of the Manual, in point 7.9, provides for guidelines on “Public competition for Design of symbols/logos”, which reads thus: “7.9.1 Certain Ministries/Departments are required to conduct competitions for the design of logos/symbols for their use, which should be conducted in a transparent, fair and objective manner. Following guidelines shall be followed by all Ministries/ Departments as well as their attached/subordinate offices and the autonomous bodies/organizations controlled by them, while conducting public competitions for design of symbols/logos for their use.” (emphasis supplied) 386 H For short, “Manual”

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 583 ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

The aforesaid requirement, which is undoubtedly desirable, is A envisioned for the designs of logos and symbols for the use of the Government and not for buildings. The distinction is crucial, for, building projects have their own functional and operational needs and a mandatory requirement of conducting a design competition may run contrary to public interest vested in operational efficiency. The exclusion is a B conscious one. It is possible to say that by conducting a design competition, it would have opened up the process and increased participation. However, for the purpose of a legal review, it can only be termed as a desirability. It cannot be elevated to the standard of an imperative legal obligation of the State. And in the absence of which, the entire process cannot be regarded as illegal. The respondents have categorically submitted that considering the fact that the proposed project is a functional building, a concept competition was conducted instead of a design competition. For, the latter is suitable for logos and art works, and a concept competition was more suited to meet the needs of a functional building. A concept competition, like a design competition, is another way of planning for developing a functional building (such as Parliament House). It is for the government to decide their method of planning from the legally available alternatives in accordance with the nature of project – emphasis on design or emphasis on functionality. In any case, it is not for the Courts to decide which competition will be more appropriate, being a policy matter. E

400Copy pinpoint400. To rebut the argument that CPWD may not be well equipped to take care of concerns of design and executing a project of such immense national importance, learned Solicitor General submitted from the record that CPWD has been successfully executing projects at international scale. The recently completed state of the art National F Assembly of Afghanistan or the Parliament of Afghanistan, he added, was constructed by CPWD and there is no occasion to doubt the competence of a whole agency. PUBLIC TRUST

401Copy pinpoint401. Evidently, vehement reliance was placed by the petitioners G on the doctrine of public trust in furthering their cause. The doctrine of public trust has traversed a long journey in legal jurisprudence. The doctrine enjoins the State to exercise its control over common public resources in a manner which furthers preservation and protection in public interest. It requires the management and distribution of public H

p. 584 Copy page pinpoint

A resources in a manner that public is not deprived of them. The doctrine of public trust involves basic element of due diligence in State’s management of public resources.

402Copy pinpoint402. The public trust doctrine was primarily evolved for regulating the State’s handling of water resources. In Landscape Architecture B Magazine, Frederick Steiner and John Roberts noted thus: “The public trust doctrine has evolved from Roman law, “by the law of nature these things are common to mankind- the air, running water, the sea and consequently the shores of the sea,” and through English common law, which held that the sovereign owns, “all of its navigable waterways and the lands laying beneath them ‘as trustee of a public trust for the benefit of the people’” (189 California Reporter 355, 1983)…387" Thereafter, with the growth of judicial review and limitations upon State action, the doctrine received evolution to other areas, for instance, lands and education. Eventually, it became a controlling factor in most of the natural public resources which give rise to an expectation of fair handling. Whereas the precise import of the public trust doctrine in a given proceeding depends upon the nature of resource under question, the underlying theme remains consistent, that is, usage of public resources for beneficial public use. E

403Copy pinpoint403. The Constitution posits this doctrine at various places, particularly in Part-IV. Illustratively, Article 39(b) mandates justness in “ownership and control of material resources” so as to “subserve common good”. Article 48A enjoins the State to protect and improve the environment thus: F “48A. The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.” Furthermore, Article 49 enjoins the State to protect monuments of historic and artistic interest thus: G “49. It shall be the obligation of the State to protect every monument or place or object of artistic or historic interest, declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance, 387 Prospect: Public Trust Doctrine, Landscape Architecture Magazine, May/June, H 1986, Vol. 76, pg. 132

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 585 ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or A export, as the case may be.” (emphasis supplied) Article 49 reveals a crucial dimension of public trust. It categorically specifies that the obligation of State to protect monuments pertains to those monuments which are declared to be of national importance by a B law made by Parliament. Though, it ipso facto does not mean that public trust does not enliven State action with respect to handling of other public resources, nonetheless it is instructive of the constitutional intent that the doctrine of public trust does not operate in vacuum. It depends on several factors including, but not limited to, the resource under question, usage of the resource in the past, proposed usage of the resource, management of the resource and nature (public or private) of the entity which is entrusted with its management.

404Copy pinpoint404. The application of this doctrine in a specific factual scenario essentially involves a balancing act. It is not a doctrine of grammar and of textual application. The ground of public trust is invoked when argument of increased protection is pitched against enhanced use of resources. It is relevant to note that in United States, the State of Hawaii is considered to have the most robust public trust jurisprudence as the Hawaiian Constitution has an express provision for it. Section-1 of Article XI thereof reads thus: E

“Section 1. For the benefit of present and future generations, the State and its political subdivisions shall conserve and protect Hawaii’s natural beauty and all natural resources, including land, water, air, minerals and energy sources, and shall promote the development and utilization of these resources in a manner F consistent with their conservation and in furtherance of the self- sufficiency of the State. All public natural resources are held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people.” G The express provision is a result of the immense environmental volatility and fast-paced reduction of limited natural resources in Hawaii. The crucial takeaway from the aforesaid reference to Hawaiian Constitution is found in the manner in which it is understood in judicial application. Despite there being an express provision, the practical understanding of public trust doctrine in Hawaii also entails a balance H

p. 586 Copy page pinpoint

A between protection and maximum beneficial use of resources. Ana Ching in “Charting the Boundaries of Hawaii’s Extensive Public Trust Doctrine Post-Waiâhole Ditch388" traces the applicability of the doctrine and notes thus: “… However, extending the public trust doctrine does not necessarily lead to greater protections for all resources, as courts have ruled that the public trust doctrine requires a balancing between protection on the one hand, and maximum beneficial use on the other. Thus, the trust’s objective is not to maximize protection, but instead is to achieve the most equitable and beneficial allocation of resources. As the case law demonstrates, this approach has left space for commercial uses of public resources.” (emphasis supplied)

405Copy pinpoint405. What emerges from the above discussion is that for proving D a violation of public trust, it falls upon the petitioners to establish that public resources are being squandered and used or planned to be used in a manner which cannot be termed as beneficial public use. The Court would look for an actual deprivation of public’s right over common resources. As for the respondents, it falls upon them to establish that the proposed use of public resources is aligned in the direction of beneficial use and in public interest. In the present case, the respondents have elaborately demonstrated the imminent need for the project. Furthermore, as discussed above, the change in land use does not result into any deprivation of recreational spaces. On the contrary, the changes would result into optimisation and greater access to open spaces including entail in assets creation. We have also noted that the present project of expansion and renovation of Parliament does not entail any destruction or diminution of heritage sites or urban aesthetics as such. The respondents have repeatedly assured the Court of adhering to all norms and conditions necessary for preservation of environment and heritage including urban aesthetics. G

406Copy pinpoint406. As regards the natural environment, we have thoroughly appraised the EC and forms submitted to obtain the same, and found no circumstance which could lead us to believe that the tenets of 388 Charting the Boundaries of Hawaii’s Extensive Public Trust Doctrine Post-Waiâhole Ditch, Ana Ching, Page 2 H

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 587 ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

environmental protection are compromised in the process. The mitigating measures have been scrutinized and are found to be carefully drawn up so as to ensure permissible beneficial use. The public trust doctrine does not prohibit beneficial use of public resources. The scale would not tilt towards status quo and retention of the existing condition of public property when the proposed use is for legitimate development and creation of assets and in public interest. Until and unless the proposed use is such that no entity holding resources in a fiduciary capacity would propose, there is no occasion for the Court to disturb a just use of resources for the fulfilment of a public purpose.

407Copy pinpoint407. Another important facet of public trust doctrine is that it limits the State from excessive entrustment of natural public resources to commercial entities. It requires an abdication of responsibility. The landmark decision of U.S. Supreme Court in Illinois Central Railroad389, relied upon by the petitioners, also involved a grant of resources to private entities. Frederick Steiner and John Roberts, in Prospect: Public Trust Doctrine, crisply noted thus: D “The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois (146 U.S. 387, 1892) has been described as the “lodestar” of American public trust law. This case involved the State of Illinois granting to the Illinois Central Railroad Company “virtually the entire harbor of the City of Chicago” and then repealing the grant. E The U.S. Supreme Court held that this repeal was legitimate, “because the state could not abandon its trust ... in the first place.” Further, because Illinois had a duty to “hold and manage” the disputed Chicago harbor lands, “the original grant was comparable to surrendering the police power in the ‘administration of government and preservation of the peace’ to a private party.”390 (emphasis supplied) 391 Furthermore, in Kamal Nath , this Court noted two aspects relating to public trust doctrine – first, resolution of conflict between those who want to preserve and those who want to meet societal exigencies in accordance with changing needs is for the legislature and 389 (supra at 88) 390 Prospect: Public Trust Doctrine, Landscape Architecture Magazine, May/June, 1986, Vol. 76, pg. 132 391 (supra at 87) H

p. 588 Copy page pinpoint

A not Courts and second, the executive cannot convert public resources into private ownership. “35. We are fully aware that the issues presented in this case illustrate the classic struggle between those members of the public who would preserve our rivers, forests, parks and open lands in B their pristine purity and those charged with administrative responsibilities who, under the pressures of the changing needs of an increasingly complex society, find it necessary to encroach to some extent upon open lands heretofore considered inviolate to change. The resolution of this conflict in any given case is for the legislature and not the courts. If there is a law made by Parliament C or the State Legislatures the courts can serve as an instrument of determining legislative intent in the exercise of its powers of judicial review under the Constitution. But in the absence of any legislation, the executive acting under the doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate the natural resources and convert D them into private ownership, or for commercial use. The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the environment and the ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any other use unless the courts find it necessary, in good faith, for the public good and in public interest to encroach upon the said resources.” E (emphasis supplied) The aforesaid exposition from Kamal Nath392 further denotes that most of the cases in which this doctrine is invoked involved conversion of public ownership into private ownership; or commercial use of resources; or abdication of responsibility; or unjust denial to common public. None of these circumstances exist in the present case. The project does not involve any conversion into private ownership and has no element whatsoever of permitting commercial use of vital public resources. The proposed project is in line with the standards of public trust and the petitioners have failed to point out any circumstance which would suggest otherwise. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION IN PUBLIC DOMAIN

408Copy pinpoint408. In our discussion above, we have highlighted the importance of availability of information in public domain. The discussion emanated H 392 (supra at 87)

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 589 ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

from the petitioners’ argument that the project is being carried forward clandestinely. There is no dispute as regards the legal position on public access to information. The enquiry here is a factual one. To counter the submission of the petitioners, the respondents have placed a detailed compilation of documents. The compilation reveals that the respondents had duly uploaded relevant documents pertaining to various stages of the process on respective websites. In fact, the petitioners have extensively built their case on the documents purportedly available in public domain. The petitioners, in W.P. (C) 853/2020, have called for production of documents before 2.9.2019. However, the formal process of inviting tenders for consultation services was initiated on 2.9.2019. All the documents after this date are in public domain. That is not in dispute. Other relevant documents relating to processes before the aforesaid date have been supplied by way of the compilation and thus, the prayer does not survive for further consideration. We consider it useful to briefly lay out the documents placed in public domain by the respondents: D (i) Relevant Environment Impact Assessment notifications from 2006-2020. (ii) Letter dated 9.12.2015 written by Smt. Sumitra Mahajan, Speaker of Lok Sabha expressing need for enhanced space. (iii) Letter dated 2.8.2019 written by Sh. Om Birla, Speaker of E Lok Sabha reiterating the need for space and other technological requirements. (iv) Office Memorandum dated 30.8.2019 issued by MoHUA expressing the need for development/redevelopment of Parliament Building, Common Central Secretariat and F Central Vista, and requesting CPWD to float a Request for Proposal (RFP) for selection of consultant. (v) Notice inviting bids dated 2.9.2019. (vi) Responses to queries received in pre-bid meeting dated G 14.9.2019. (vii) Copy of notice inviting bids dated 23.9.2019. Evidently, all relevant documents from the stage of expression of need for the project by Speaker of Lok Sabha to appointment of consultant, issuance of public notice, conduct of public hearing, final H

p. 590 Copy page pinpoint

A notification for change in land use and minutes of meetings of CVC, DUAC and EAC were placed in public domain. The petitioners have not pointed out a single document which formed a part of the process and was not placed in public domain.

409Copy pinpoint409. Be that as it may, it is also relevant to note that mere absence of information does not vitiate an administrative process, that too in toto. This is not the standard envisaged for judicial review. For, after the enactment of the 2005 Act, there are statutory means for obtaining information from the Government. If the authority fails to provide relevant information, the same could be assailed before appellate bodies. There is a duly streamlined procedure for the same. The real effect of absence of information in public domain has to be tested on the anvil of actual prejudice on public’s ability to participate in the decision-making process, wherever provided for. It must result into a denial of legally enforceable right. In the present case, none of the persons who participated in raising objections to change in land use or those who sent representations to D DUAC and EAC have come forward to contend that they could not access information, thereby rendering them incapable of participating in the process or in raising informed objections. Nothing survives for further consideration on this count.

410Copy pinpoint410. Reverting to the argument of the petitioners that technical E information and documents (such as redevelopment plan and layouts) were not kept in public domain, which prevented the objectors to make effective representation. This objection was taken before the BoEH. It has been so recorded in the recommendations of BoEH. It had noted that majority of the objectors who are planners and architects entertain a feeling that authentic technical information of this iconic project of F Central Vista is not available in public domain. Further, it is suggested that impact assessment study on traffic, environment and heritage may be commissioned at the earliest. The third major objection noticed by the BoEH was that the project proponent had not forwarded the proposal to CVC. As regards the last two points, the same has nothing to do with G the grievance regarding lack of information in public domain. Coming to the first objection regarding lack of technical information regarding the iconic project in public domain, we fail to understand as to how that would be a case of statutory non-compliance of the procedure for consideration or for that matter, the culmination of final decision of the Authority and of the Central Government in exercise of powers under H

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 591 ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

Section 11A of the Act. In the context of modification of Master Plan or A Zonal Plan, the procedure prescribed in the Rules is limited to disclosure of intention as per the form prescribed for issuing public notice and the manner of enquiry to be conducted by the BoEH. The public notice is not required to be accompanied by technical information of the proposed project to be constructed on the notified plots. In fact, the concluding B paragraph of public notice dated 21.12.2019 makes it amply clear that the text/plan indicating the proposed modifications is available on DDA’s official website i.e. www.dda.org.in. Further, there is no statutory requirement to display development plan concerning the proposed project, in the town planning legislation under consideration. Be it noted that the case on hand is not relating to the preparation of draft Master Plan or C Zonal Plan governed by Part III of the Act, but only regarding modification in exercise of powers under Section 11A of the Act. In any case, it was open to the interested party to approach the concerned authority under the 2005 Act for obtaining (further) requisite information from the concerned authority. It is not the case of the petitioners that such application was made and was not entertained within reasonable time or was rejected. Had such application been made, the Authority would have responded to appropriately. It needs no emphasis that if any person who intended to take objection by relying on technical information had thirty clear days’ time to obtain such information and submit his objection. Merely taking such objection for the sake of record does not take the matter any further nor need be entertained, in law, so as to label the final decision of the competent authority as illegal. Furthermore, as noticed earlier in the present case, none of the petitioners had raised any point other than 13 points taken before the BoEH during the hearing. Suffice it to observe that the argument of non-availability of stated technical information in public domain as pursued by the petitioners, will be of no consequence and certainly not germane to declare the final decision of the Central Government manifested vide notification dated 20.3.2020 as illegal. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN I.A. G

411Copy pinpoint411. We now turn to the preliminary objection raised in I.A. No. 59230 of 2020 as regards the propriety of the Court’s order to collectively entertain the wide range of issues connected with the present subject matter, including those relating to EC in light of our order dated 6.3.2020. It has been submitted that the order resulted into a denial of statutory right to approach other forums and could not have been passed. H

p. 592 Copy page pinpoint

412Copy pinpoint412. At the outset, we note that the said order did not operate as a bar against any person from approaching the Court for any relief whatsoever. The present lis reached this Court by way of a substantive special leave petition and later, writ petitions filed in the High Court of Delhi came to be transferred to this Court. Thereafter, seven other writ petitions have been filed directly before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. In any case, once a cause reaches this Court and of this nature, the fundamental concern of the Court is and must be not only of doing substantial and complete justice, but also expeditious resolution of all aspects in larger public interest. This we must do within the constitutional bounds. Judicial activism to this limited extent is certainly permissible, in national interest. In doing so, the Court would not merely exercise its power under Article 139A while transferring the case before itself, rather, the underlying principle at play is the duty of this Court to do complete justice as envisaged under Article 142 and to obviate possibility of project of national importance being stuck, embroiled and delayed due to engagement of the project proponent before multiple legal forums/proceedings. We have had plethora of cases in the post- PIL period wherein prolonged litigation against infrastructural projects resulted in inordinate delays to the extent that the projects got buried forever or became unviable owing to excessive burden on the public exchequer (honest taxpayers’ money). That is where this Court’s power to do not only complete but substantial justice gets triggered.

413Copy pinpoint413. Deviating from constitutional obligation of the Court, we may also note that the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 aligned the view of the legislature in this direction with the insertion of Section-20A and clause (ha) to Section-41 which prohibited the grant of injunction against infrastructural projects. The underlying legislative intent of the legislature is to protect such projects from inappropriate use of Court processes. Therefore, there is no doubt that the broad approach of a constitutional Court in dealing with a public interest matter has to be a vigilant one to further larger public interest. The laws delay due to tardy flow of Court processes (for variety of reasons attributable to different stakeholders or duty holders or so to say systematic one) must not let itself become an impediment in the fulfilment of development goals of our hallowed nation and consequently to the future generation. Depending on the subject matter, the constitutional Courts must address the legal challenges at the earliest opportunity without being bogged down by technicalities, in national interest.

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 593 ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

414Copy pinpoint414. There is ample support to the proposition that when larger national interest is involved and concerns of public exchequer are directly involved in the lis, the Court must act at the earliest opportunity. For, each day’s delay has a direct impact on the exchequer. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India393, the Court resonated this position and observed thus: B “227. There are three stages with regard to the undertaking of an infrastructural project. One is conception or planning, second is decision to undertake the project and the third is the execution of the project. The conception and the decision to undertake a project is to be regarded as a policy decision. While there is always a need for such projects not being unduly delayed, it is at the same time expected that a thorough possible study will be undertaken before a decision is taken to start a project. Once such a considered decision is taken, the proper execution of the same should be undertaken expeditiously. It is for the Government to decide how to do its job. When it has put a system in place for the execution of a project and such a system cannot be said to be arbitrary, then the only role which a court may have to play is to see that the system works in the manner it was envisaged.”

415Copy pinpoint415. In Tata Cellular394, the Court referred to the following para authored by Clive Lewis from Judicial Remedies in Public Law, 1992 E edition: “86. An innovative approach is made by Clive Lewis as to why the courts should be slow in quashing administrative decisions (in his Judicial Remedies in Public Law 1992 Edn. at pp. 294-95). The illuminating passage reads as under: F “The courts now recognise that the impact on the administration is relevant in the exercise of their remedial jurisdiction. Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burdens on the administration, divert resources towards reopening decisions, and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Earlier cases took the robust line that the law G had to be observed, and the decision invalidated whatever the administrative inconvenience caused. The courts nowadays recognise that such an approach is not always appropriate and may not be in the wider public interest. The effect on the administrative process is relevant 393 (supra at 132) 394 (supra at 256) H

p. 594 Copy page pinpoint

A to the courts’ remedial discretion and may prove decisive. This is particularly the case when the challenge is procedural rather than substantive, or if the courts can be certain that the administrator would not reach a different decision even if the original decisions were quashed. Judges may differ in the importance they attach to the disruption that quashing a decision will cause. They may also be influenced by the B extent to which the illegality arises from the conduct of the administrative body itself, and their view of that conduct.””

416Copy pinpoint416. The character of a public interest proceeding is necessarily non-adversarial in nature and it is not a matter of two individuals fighting against each other at all possible forums. In Kalpana Mehta & Ors. v. C Union of India & Ors.395, this Court, in para 206, had observed that “When courts enter upon issues of public interest and adjudicate upon them, they do not discharge a function which is adversarial.” Such a proceeding is essentially in the nature of a collective enquiry to determine whether the State is acting in accordance with settled principles of law and such collective enquiry is always targeted towards larger D public interest. What purpose will a public interest proceeding serve if the fulfilment of one notion of public interest leads to a clear subjugation of another legitimate action of the State taken in public interest and as the petitioners themselves put it, concerning project of national importance touching upon democratic polity. That is where the role of this Court E comes in, which ought to be active and not passive in such proceedings.

417Copy pinpoint417. We may usefully refer to our prior discussion on the statutory jurisdiction of NGT vis-a-vis the constitutional powers of this Court. We are not reiterating the same here to avoid repetition. The expression “complete justice” does not contemplate a narrow view of doing justice to the petitioners or the respondents. Rather, the principle entails looking at the parties, their respective positions and the subject matter/cause before it as a whole. The Court needs to be even more vigilant and proactive in its pursuit of complete justice when the subject matter involves an exercise of power in rem and considerations of public interest traverse beyond the immediate expectations of the parties before the Court. It is not a case where parties have approached the Court for the vindication of personal rights, as already noted above, and the nature of subject matter is entirely different.

418Copy pinpoint418. When competing public interests are brought before a constitutional Court, it becomes the duty of the Court to harmonize and 395 (2018) 7 SCC 1 H

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 595 ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

balance such interests, even if it requires the invocation of an extraordinary power. The performance of this function by the Court becomes even more indispensable when the grievance of the petitioners is that national interest is at stake. It is precisely for such occasions that this Court is bestowed with such a plenary power.

419Copy pinpoint419. We also briefly note that this Court has time and again restated that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is plenary and merely because a statutory remedy of appeal is provided for in a statute, it cannot be the sole basis to take away the jurisdiction of this Court in a cause pending before it, which is likely to pose legal questions of larger public and national interest including to facilitate the State to fulfil its constitutional obligations. Moreso because, substantive writ petition(s) is filed and is being heard analogously by this Court as public interest litigation to question the impact of the impugned decision(s) being violative of environmental laws. In any case, this objection has become academic because at the end of the oral arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, who had taken this plea, suggested to dispose of the application as infructuous. POSTLUDE

420Copy pinpoint420. Before we part, we feel constrained to note that in the present case, the petitioners enthusiastically called upon us to venture into territories that are way beyond the contemplated powers of a constitutional court. We are compelled to wonder if we, in the absence of a legal mandate, can dictate the government to desist from spending money on one project and instead use it for something else, or if we can ask the government to run their offices only from areas decided by this Court, or if we can question the wisdom of the government in focusing on a F particular direction of development. We are equally compelled to wonder if we can jump to put a full stop on execution of policy matters in the first instance without a demonstration of irreparable loss or urgent necessity, or if we can guide the government on moral or ethical matters without any legal basis. In light of the settled law, we should be loath to venture into these areas. We need to say this because in recent past, the route of G public/social interest litigation is being increasingly invoked to call upon the Court to examine pure concerns of policy and sorts of generalised grievances against the system. No doubt, the Courts are repositories of immense public trust and the fact that some public interest actions have generated commendable results is noteworthy, but it is equally important H

p. 596 Copy page pinpoint

A to realise that Courts operate within the boundaries defined by the Constitution. We cannot be called upon to govern. For, we have no wherewithal or prowess and expertise in that regard.

421Copy pinpoint421. The constitutionally envisaged system of “checks and balances” has been completely misconstrued and misapplied in this case. B The principle of “checks and balances” posits two concepts - “check” and “balance”. Whereas the former finds a manifestation in the concept of judicial review, the latter is derived from the well enshrined principle of separation of powers396. The political issues including regarding development policies of the Government of the day must be debated in the Parliament, to which it is accountable. The role of Court is limited to C examining the constitutionality including legality of the policy and Government actions. The right to development, as discussed above, is a basic human right and no organ of the State is expected to become an impediment in the process of development as long as the government proceeds in accordance with law.

422Copy pinpoint422. The parties had relied upon several reported decisions/ authorities in support of their arguments. However, we have considered the same to the extent necessary; and referred to those which are found to be relevant for deciding the issues under consideration, in our judgment at appropriate place(s). We do not deem it necessary to dilate on other E relied upon decisions being repetitive or not directly on the points answered by us, to obviate prolixity. Also, because the principle expounded therein is restated by us in this judgment and is no way different. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

423Copy pinpoint423. In conclusion, we declare and direct as follows: F (i) We hold that there is no infirmity in the grant of: (a) “No Objection” by the Central Vista Committee (CVC); (b) “Approval” by the Delhi Urban Art Commission G (DUAC) as per the DUAC Act, 1973; and (c) “Prior approval” by the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) under clause 1.12 of the Building Byelaws for Delhi, 2016. 396 As restated in Dr. Ashwani Kumar (supra at 167) – paras 8 to 19, 22 to 37, 43 and H 44.

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 597 ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

(ii) We further hold that the exercise of power by the Central A Government under Section 11A(2) of the DDA Act, 1957 is just and proper and thus the modifications regarding change in land use of plot Nos. 2 to 8 in the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021/Zonal Development Plan for Zone-D and Zone- C vide impugned notification dated 20.3.2020 stands confirmed. (iii) The recommendation of Environmental Clearance (EC) by Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) and grant thereof by MoEF is just, proper and in accordance with law including the 2006 Notification. We uphold the same along with appropriate directions therein to ensure that the highlighted mitigating measures are followed by the project proponent in their letter and spirit. (iv) The project proponent may set up smog tower(s) of adequate capacity, as being integral part of the new Parliament building project; and additionally, use smog guns at the construction site throughout the construction phase is in progress on the site. (v) We also call upon the respondent MoEF to consider issuing similar general directions regarding installation of adequate capacity of smog tower(s) as integral part in all future major development projects whilst granting development permissions, particularly in cities with bad track record of air quality - be it relating to Government buildings, townships or other private projects of similar scale and magnitude, including to use smog guns during the construction activity of the Project is in progress. (vi) The stage of prior permission under clause 1.3 of the Building Bye Laws of the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC), is the stage of actual development/redevelopment etc. work is to commence and not the incipient stage of planning and formalisation of the Project. Accordingly, the respondents shall obtain aforementioned prior permission of the designated Authority before actually starting any development/redevelopment work on the stated plots/ structures/precincts governed by the heritage laws including on plot No. 118, if already not obtained. H

p. 598 Copy page pinpoint

A (vii) The selection/appointment of Consultant, in light of the limited examination warranted in this case, is held to be just and proper.

424Copy pinpoint424. We must reserve a moment to appreciate the contribution made by learned counsel representing various parties. Despite voluminous documents involved in the case and given the fact that the hearing was conducted via video conferencing, the assistance given by learned counsel was invaluable. That helped us immensely in deciding the complex nature of factual and legal aspects involved in the case.

425Copy pinpoint425. Having answered the questions posed for our consideration, the subject petitions/appeal(s)/cases stand disposed of in their entirety in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of with no order as regards costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J.

1. In the heart of the national capital, and within the “Lutyens’ D Bungalow Zone” (LBZ), lies the Central Vista – the centrepiece and living heritage of Delhi. The Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) describes Central Vista as the “ensemble with main axis Rajpath...the Rashtrapati Bhawan at Raisina Hills, flanked by the Secretariat (North and South Blocks)...the Parliament House...the hexagonal round-about that has the India Gate and the Canopy...” The Rashtrapati Bhawan, spread over about 330 acres, is the abode of the head of the Indian Republic. The Parliament House is the birth-place of our Constitution and the sanctum sanctorum where the elected representatives of people discuss, deliberate and enact laws. The North and the South Blocks house offices where the higher echelons of government and civil service take policy decisions and govern the largest democracy in the world. The promenade has other iconic buildings like India Gate with Amar Jawan Jyoti, the National Archives, the National Museum, the National Stadium, the National War Memorial and the adolescents’ favourite ‘the Children’s Park’. The area embellished with green lawns, water channels and fountains attracts residents and visitors for its distinctiveness, historical relevance and as a locale for relaxation, recreation, walks and picnics. Initially constructed possibly as a statement of imperial grandeur and power, the Central Vista, in post-independent India, inspires and connects common people to the citadels of our democracy. H

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 599 ORS. [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

2. The present dispute relating to the modification and redevelopment of the Central Vista has different facets. First, is the legal challenge to change in the land use of six plots in the Central Vista under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, and the permissions/approvals granted by the Central Vista Committee, the Delhi Urban Arts Commission under the Delhi Urban Arts Commission Act, 1973 and the clearance/no-objection for construction of a new Parliament House under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. Failure to take prior permission/ approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee as per Annexure II of the Unified Building Bye-Laws is alleged. In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 853/2020, the Notice inviting Bid and award of consultancy to the nineth respondent therein has been challenged. At a deeper and conceptual level the question relates to the government’s duty to consult and the scope and ambit of the citizen’s right to participate in the quasi legislative exercise. Connected with the two issues is the third question of scope and amplitude of the power of judicial review.

3. Since I have reservations with the opinion expressed by my esteemed brother A.M. Khanwilkar, J. on the aspects of public participation on interpretation of the statutory provisions, failure to take prior approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee and the order passed by the Expert Appraisal Committee, I have penned down a separate dissenting judgment. However on the aspects of Notice inviting Bid, award of consultancy and the order of the Urban Arts Commission, E as a standalone and independent order, I respectfully agree with the final conclusions in the judgment authored by respected brother A.M. Khanwilkar J.

4. At the outset, an overview of the legislative and regulatory framework of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (‘Development Act’) F and the applicable rules would be beneficial in understanding the facts and issues that need consideration and decision. 4.1 The Development Act is enacted by the Parliament with the objective to develop Delhi in a planned manner, as without proper planning the growth of the national capital would be unorganised, inequitable, G unaesthetic and hazardous. The Development Act postulates constitution of the Delhi Development Authority (the ‘Authority’), which shall work to promote and secure the development of Delhi according to plan. Chapter III, titled ‘Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan,’ consists of Sections 7 to 11. Section 7 requires the Authority to carry out a civic H

p. 600 Copy page pinpoint

A survey and prepare a Master Plan for Delhi, defining various zones into which Delhi may be divided for the purposes of development, and indicate the manner in which the land in each zone is proposed to be used. Section 8 of the Development Act states that simultaneously with the preparation of Master Plan, or soon thereafter, the Authority shall prepare zonal development plans for each of the zones. The Master Plan is to serve as B a basic pattern of framework within which these zonal development plans may be prepared. These zonal development plans may contain a site-plan and use-plan for the development of the zone and show the approximate locations and extents of land-uses proposed including such things as public buildings and other public works and utilities, housing, recreation, public and private open spaces, other categories of public and private uses etc. It is also to specify the standards of population density and building density, and show every area in the zone which may, in the opinion of the Authority, be required or declared for development or redevelopment. Section 9 states that after its preparation, the Authority shall submit the plan to the Central Government for approval as soon as possible. The Central Government may either approve the plan with or without such modifications as it may consider necessary or reject the plan with directions to the Authority to prepare a fresh plan. 4.2 Section 10 of the Development Act is of importance and reads as under: E “10. Procedure to be followed in the preparation and approval of plans.— (1) Before preparing any plan finally and submitting it to the Central Government for approval, the Authority shall prepare a plan in draft and publish it by making a copy thereof available for inspection and publishing a notice in such form and manner as may be prescribed by rules made in this behalf inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to the draft plan before such date as may be specified in the notice. (2) The Authority shall also give reasonable opportunities to every local authority within whose local limits any land touched by the plan is situated, to make any representation with respect to the plan. (3) After considering all objections, suggestions and representations that may have been received by the Authority, the Authority shall finally prepare the plan and submit it to the Central Government H for its approval.

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 601 ORS. [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

(4) Provisions may be made by rules made in this behalf with respect to the form and content of a plan and with respect to the procedure to be followed and any other matter, in connection with the preparation, submission and approval of such plan. (5) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section the Central Government may direct the Authority to furnish such information as that Government may require for the purpose of approving any plan submitted to it under this section.” Section 10 mandates the Authority to first prepare a draft plan in accordance with the rules and publish it, inviting objections and suggestions from any person. Every local authority within whose local limits any land touched by the plan is situated is also to be given a reasonable opportunity to make representation. Upon consideration of the objections, suggestions and representations, the Authority shall finally prepare the plan and submit it to the Central Government for approval. We shall subsequently refer to the rules enacted, which read together with the Development Act envisage a scheme of robust and effective public participation in the entire process. 4.3 Section 11 states that after the plan has been approved by the Central Government, the Authority shall publish the plan in a manner prescribed by the regulations, and by way of a notice, inform that the plan has been approved, the place where a copy of the plan may be inspected at all reasonable hours, and the date on which it shall come into operation. 4.4 Section 11A which was inserted by Act 56 of 1963 with effect from 30th December, 1963 and reads: F “11A. Modifications to plan. – (1) The Authority may make any modifications to the master plan or the zonal development plan as it thinks fit, being modifications which, in its opinion, do not effect important alterations in the character of the plan and which do not relate to the extent of land-uses or the standards of population density. G (2) The Central Government may make any modifications to the master plan or the zonal development plan whether such modifications are of the nature specified in sub-section (1) or otherwise. H

p. 602 Copy page pinpoint

A (3) Before making any modifications to the plan, the Authority or, as the case may be, the Central Government shall publish a notice in such form and manner as may be prescribed by rules made in this behalf inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to the proposed modifications before such date as may be specified in the notice and shall consider all objections and suggestions that may be received by the Authority or the Central Government. (4) Every modification made under the provisions of this section shall be published in such manner as the Authority or the Central Government, as the case may be, may specify and the modifications shall come into operation either on the date of the publication or on such other date as the Authority or the Central Government may fix. (5) When the Authority makes any modifications to the plan under sub-section (1), it shall report to the Central Government the full particulars of such modifications within thirty days of the date on which such modifications come into operation. (6) If any question arises whether the modifications proposed to be made by the Authority are modifications which effect important alterations in the character of the plan or whether they relate to the extent of land-uses or the standards of population density, it shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision thereon shall be final. (7) Any reference in any other Chapter, except Chapter III, to the master plan or the zonal development plan shall be construed as a F reference to the master plan or the zonal development plan as modified under the provisions of this section.” Sub-section (1) to Section 11A permits the Authority to make modifications to the Master Plan or Zonal Development Plan which in its opinion, does not affect any important alterations in the character of G the plan and which does not relate to the extent of land-uses or the standards of population density. Sub-section (2) to Section 11A similarly empowers the Central Government to make modifications to the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan, but with a wider power to even affect modifications which go beyond the exclusions under sub-section (1). The power of modification is to be exercised when necessary in H

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 603 ORS. [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

public interest. Sub-section (3) to Section 11A imposes and casts a duty A on the Authority or Central Government, as the case may be, to consult general public by publication of a notice in the prescribed form and manner, invite objections and suggestions in respect of the proposed modification. The Authority or the Central Government, as the case may be, are duty bound to consider the objections and suggestions. When B upon consideration, the Authority makes modifications under sub-section (1), it is required to report the full particulars to the Central Government, within 30 days of the date from which such modification come into force. Similarly, the Central Government may after consideration of the objections/suggestions notify the modification(s) in terms of sub-sections (2) to (4) to Section 11A of the Development Act. Sub-section (6) states C that where a question arises whether the modifications proposed by the Authority have the effect of making changes that are covered by the exclusions in sub-section (1), the Authority shall refer the matter to the Central Government, whose decision would be final. 4.5 Act 56 of 1963 also amended clause (g) to sub-section (2) of D Section 56 of the Development Act which relates to the power of the Central Government to make Rules after consultation with the Authority and which have to be notified in the Official Gazette. Clause (g) to sub- section (2) of Section 56 of the Development Act, before insertion of Section 11A, stipulated thus: “(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- xx xx xx (g) the periodical amendment of the master plan and a zonal development plan, the period at the expiration of which such amendment may be taken up, the procedure to be followed in making such amendment and the date of operation of such amendment;” Post the amendment, clause (g) of Section 56(2) of the Development Act reads as under: G “(g) the form and manner in which notice under sub-section (3) of section 11A shall be published;” 4.6 The Central Government in exercise of power under sub- section (1) of Section 56, read with clauses (e), (g) and (r) of sub-section (2) to Section 56, has enacted the Delhi Development (Master Plan and H

p. 604 Copy page pinpoint

A Zonal Development Plan) Rules, 1959, (the ‘Development Rules’) which came into force on 1st January, 1960.Development Rules, in terms of Rule 3, require the Authority to carry out a civic survey and analysis of the physical, economic and sociological features of Delhi with reference to the natural resources, distribution of population, industry, communication, housing requirements, and other matters relating to the development of B Delhi. Thereafter, a draft Master Plan – consisting of maps, diagrams, charts, reports, and other written matter of explanatory or descriptive nature, as they pertain to development of the whole or any part of Delhi –has to be prepared and made available for public examination. Clause (b) of sub-rule (3) to Rule 4 states that the draft Master Plan may include C the land use plan based upon such survey of the present use of land as may be necessary as well as analysis of estimated future needs and consisting of comprehensive proposal for most desirable utilisation of land including government land. It may include a financial plan and an administrative plan. Rule 5 relates to public notice regarding preparation of Master Plan, and reads: D “5. Public Notice regarding preparation of Master Plan. - (1) As soon as may be after the draft master plan has been prepared, the Authority shall publish a public notice stating that - (a) the draft Master Plan has been prepared and may be inspected by any person at such time and place may be specified in those notice; (b) suggestions and objections in writing, if any, in respect of the draft master plan may be filed by any person with the secretary of the Authority within 90 days from the date of first publication of the notice. [Provided that where the Central Government considers it expedient so to do for the purpose of maintenance of public order or in case of any exigency likely to affect the interest of the public it may require such suggestions and objection to be filed within in period of three days from the date of the notice] G (2) This notice may be in Form A appended to these rules without modification with. Such modification as may be necessary.” Rule 5 states that public notice will be published stating that the draft master plan has been prepared and may be inspected at such time and place as specified and secondly, suggestions and objections in writing,

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 605 ORS. [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

if any, in respect of the Master Plan may be filed with the Secretary of the Authority within ninety (90) days of the first publication of the notice. Under the proviso the Central Government may in case of exigency provide for a shorter notice. 4.7 Rule 6 states that the notice will be published in the manner prescribed in Section 44 of the Development Act and shall also be published in the official gazette. 4.8 Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 which deal with consideration of objections and suggestions and preparation of the final draft Master Plan; read: “8. Appointment of Board for enquiry and hearing. - (1) The Authority shall, for hearing and considering any representation, objection and suggestion to the draft master plan, appoint a Board consisting of not less than 3 and not more than 5 members of the Authority. Provided that such Board shall have powers to co-opt not more than 2 members from amongst the members of the Advisory D Council. [(2) No business of the Board shall be transacted at any meeting unless at least three members are present from the beginning to the end of the hearing.] E

9. Enquiry and hearing. - The secretary shall, after the expiry of the period allowed under these rules for making objections, representations and suggestions fix a date or dates for hearing by the Board of any person, or local authority in connection with any objection, representation or suggestion made by such person or local authority in respect of the draft master plan and shall serve on the local authority or any person who may be allowed a personal hearing in connection with such representation, objection or suggestion to the draft master plan, a notice intimating the time, date and place of the hearing. Provided that the Board may disallow personal hearing to any person, if it is of the opinion that the objection or suggestion made by such person in inconsequential, trivial or irrelevant.

10. Report of Enquiry. - The Board shall after the conclusion of its enquiry, submit to the Authority a report of its recommendations. H

p. 606 Copy page pinpoint

A 11. Preparation of final draft Master Plan and its submission to Central Government. - The Authority shall, after considering the report of the Board and any other matter it thinks fit, finally prepare the master plan and submit it to the Central Government for its approval.” B As per Rule 8, the Authority is required to appoint a Board of Enquiry and Hearing (BoEH) for hearing and considering the representations, objections and suggestions to the draft Master Plan. BoEH shall comprise of not less than three members of the Authority, which has the power to co-opt not more than two members from amongst the members of the Advisory Council of the Authority. Sub-rule (2) to C Rule 8 prescribes the minimum quorum for the BoEH and states that no business of the BoEH shall be transacted unless at least three members of the BoEH are present from the beginning till the end of the hearing. Rule 9 states that the Secretary of the Authority, after the procedure prescribed under the Rules for making objections/representations and suggestions has been followed, shall serve notice on the local authority or the person who may be allowed personal hearing in connection with the representation, objection or suggestion to the draft Master Plan, intimating the time, date and place of hearing. Rule 10 states that the BoEH after conclusion of the inquiry shall submit to the Authority a report of its recommendations. Clearly, the sub-rules demonstrate the importance given to public participation including public hearing. 4.9 As per Rule 11 the Authority after considering the report of the BoEH and any other matter it thinks fit, shall finally prepare the Master Plan and submit it to the Central Government for its approval. Rules 5 to 11 apply mutatis mutandis to Zonal Development Plans. F 4.10 The Development Rules were amended by the Delhi Development (Master and Zonal Development Plan) Amendment Rules, 1966 by Gazette Notification GSR 930 dated 13 th of May, 1966. Consequent to this amendment, Rules 12 and 13, which dealt with amendment of the Master Plan, were omitted. This was ex facie necessary and followed enactment of Section 11A of the Development Act. After Rule 15, Chapter V titled “Modification to the Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plan” was inserted, wherein Rule 16 states that the notice referred to in subsection (3) of Section 11A shall be in Form B, and published in accordance with Rule 6. Form B is reproduced below:

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 607 ORS. [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

“FORM B A Public Notice The following modification/s which the Delhi Development Authority/Central Government proposes to make to the Master Plan for Delhi/Zonal Development Plan/s, for zone/s ________ is/are hereby published for public information. Any person having any objection or suggestion with respect to the proposed modification/s may send the objection or suggestion in writing to the Secretary, Delhi Development Authority, Delhi Vikas Bhawan, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi, within a period of thirty days from the date of this notice. The person making the objection or suggestion should also give his name and address. Modification/s. ................................... ................................... D ...................................

2. The plan/s indicating the proposed modification/s will be available for inspection at the office of the Authority, Delhi Vikas Bhawan, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi, on all working days except Saturday, within the period referred to above. E

Secretary Delhi Development Authority Delhi Vikas Bhawan, F Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi Dated, the ____ 196 .” [No. 19015(3)/66-UD.] G

R.R. Sharma, Under Secy.”

5. By virtue of powers under the Development Act and the Development Rules, a Master Plan for Delhi was promulgated in 1962, setting out a broad vision for the development of Delhi. Subsequently, H

p. 608 Copy page pinpoint

A for some reasons which we cannot fathom, albeit which need not be examined for the present litigation, the Authority by taking recourse and invoking Section 11A of the Development Act has enacted the Master Plan of Delhi 2001, followed by the Master Plan of Delhi 2021, which is currently being implemented. While the second and the third Master Plans were regarded as modifications under Section 11-A of the B Development Act, the procedure under Section 11 and the Development Rules was followed in preparation and publication of the draft master plan and the positive requirement of public consultation and hearing were followed on both occasions. Significance of this exercise and its’ legal implications would be noticed later.

C 6. With this statutory framework in mind, we shall proceed to consider the facts;- (a) On 2nd September 2019, Central Public Works Department (also referred to as ‘CPWD’) issued notice inviting bids for the “Development/Redevelopment of Parliament D Building, Common Central Secretariat and Central Vista at New Delhi.” The tender document stated: “A new Master Plan is to be drawn up for the entire Central Vista area that represents the values and aspirations of a New India – good governance, efficiency, transparency, accountability and E equity and is rooted in the Indian Culture and social milieu.” (b) On 4th December 2019, the Land and Development Office (L&DO), in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), forwarded a proposal for change in land use of 7 plots located in the Central Vista area and 1 plot located in the Timarpur area, to the Authority. On the very next day F i.e., 5th December 2019 the Technical Committee of the Authority held its meeting. The examination was on the proposal for change of land use for the following plots : “A. Plot No. 1 is located on Church road near DTC Central Secretariat Bus Terminal, New Delhi. As per G MPD - 2021 the Land Use of the Site is under Transportation (Bus Terminal/Parking). (Location marked on attached Annexure A). The proposed land use of the site is Government Office. B. Plot No. 2 is located opposite to the Parliament House, H New Delhi. As per MPD - 2021 the land use of the site

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 609 ORS. [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

is under Recreational (District Park). (Location marked A on attached Annexure A). The proposed land use of the site is Government Office. C. Plot No. 3 is located on Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road and houses National Archives. As per MPD - 2021 the land use of the site is under Public and Semi Public B facilities. (Location marked on attached Annexure A). The proposed land use of the site is Government Office and Recreational (District Park). D. Plot No. 4 is located on Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road and is occupied by Indira Gandhi National Centre for C Art and Culture. As per MPD - 2021 the land use of the site is under Public and Semi Public facilities (SC). (Location marked on attached Annexure A). The proposed land use of the site is under Government Office and Recreational (District Park). D E. Plot No. 5 is located between Man Singh Road, Ashoka Road and India Gate Hexagon in a triangular formation. As MPD - 2021 the land use of the site is under Public and Semi Public facilities. (Location marked on attached Annexure A). The proposed land use of the site is Government Office. E

F. Plot No. 6 is located on Maulana Azad Road and consists of VP house, Vigyan Bhavan and National Museum. As per MPD -2021 the land use of the site is under Public and Semi Public facilities (SC). (Location marked on attached Annexure A). The proposed land F use of the site is under Government Office. G. Plot No. 7 is located on Dara Shikoh Marg. As per MPD - 2021 the land use of the site is under Government office. (Location marked on attached Annexure A). The proposed land use of the site is Residential. G H. Plot No. 8 is located on Lucknow Road near Timarpur and part of Planning Zone C. As per MPD-2021 the land use of the site is under Public and Semi Public Facilities. (Location marked on attached Annexure B). H

p. 610 Copy page pinpoint

A The proposed land use of the site is Recreational (District Park).” (c) On the same day, i.e. 5th December 2019, the Technical Committee of the Authority approved the proposal for further processing under Section 11A of the Development B Act. Relevant portion of the decision is as under:

G (d) Thereafter, on 21st December 2019, a public notice was issued inviting objections and suggestions from the public in terms of sub-section 3 to Section 11-A of the Development Act and Rule 16 under the Development Rules, the relevant portion of which reads as under: H

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 611 ORS. [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

“DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A (Master Plan Section) PUBLIC NOTICE New Delhi, the 21st December, 2019 S.O. 4587(E).--––The following modification which the Delhi B Development Authority / Central Government proposes to make to the Master Plan-2021 / Zonal Development Plan of Zone ‘D’ (for Plot No. 1 to 7) and Zone ‘C’ (for Plot No. 8) under Section 11-A of DD Act, 1957, is hereby published for public information. Any person haying any objection/suggestion with respect to the proposed modification may send the objection/suggestion in writing to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Delhi Development Authority, ‘B’ Block, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi-110023 within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this Public Notice. The person making the objection or suggestion should also give his/her name and address in addition to telephone No./contact number and e-mail ID which should be legible. Proposed Modification:

p. 612 Copy page pinpoint

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 613 ORS. [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

The text/Plan indicating the proposed modifications shall A be available for inspection at the office of Deputy Director (MP), Delhi Development Authority, 6th Floor, Vikas Minar, I.P. Estate, New Delhi on all working days during the period referred above. The text/plan indicating the proposed modifications is also available on DDA’s website i.e. B www.dda.org.in. [F. No. F. 20(12)2019/MP] D. SARKAR, Dy. Secy.” (e) Meanwhile, on 31st January 2020 a revised proposal for change of land use in respect of Plot No.1 was sent by the C L&DO to the Authority. (f) As per the respondents, pursuant to the public notice, as many as 1292 objections to the proposed amendments/ modifications to the plan were received from people living across the country. Some were on behalf of multiple persons. (For example, objection/suggestion No.1292 was on behalf of Rajiv Kataria and 16 others.) (g) The public notice had stipulated: - “as per procedure all the objections/suggestions received within the stipulated time period of 30 days i.e. up to 19.01.2020, will be placed before the Board of Enquiry and Hearing (BoEH)”. There is an error in computation of the 30-day period in the public notice, as Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 F requires exclusion of the date of publication. Accordingly, the period of 30 days having commenced on 22nd December 2019 would have ended on 20 th January,2020. The respondents in their counter affidavit have not specifically dealt with and answered this contention. However, at the time of hearing it was stated that objections received as G late as on 21st January 2020 were taken into consideration. Reliance placed on the compilation giving a gist of objections/ suggestions which refers to the diary number and the date, does not indicate the date on which the objections/ suggestions were received in the inbox. Consequently, we H

p. 614 Copy page pinpoint

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 615 ORS. [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

In case any person who has filed objection/ suggestion but does not find his/her name in the schedule or has not received any e-mail/SMS, may present his/her oral submission before the Board on the said date i.e. 07.02.2020 (Friday) from 1:00 P.M. to 1:30 P.M. All persons are requested to carry a valid Identity Proof.” B The public hearings were held on 6th and 7th February 2020. (i) A summary of the objections and suggestions was prepared and made available to the BoEH. The most common, if not almost universal, grievance raised was scanty and insufficient information and lack of details/explanation C regarding the proposed changes and the redevelopment envisaged so as to enable the public to make suggestions/ objections. Consequently, there was disquiet and perturbation. For the sake of convenience and for clarity, we would like to reproduce portions of some of the objections/suggestions: D

“Sriram Ganapathi Objections: On account of the Central Vista area being the ‘nation- space’ of India the ever-increasing association in the minds of the general pubic of this being the space that signifies the unity and spirit of India and the manifestation of the same in the ever-increasing number of Indians who visit this area the proposed reduction of as much as 80 acres of area available both directly and indirectly to the general public transport and parking etc. in this area may be an inappropriate planning decision for obvious reasons. xx xx xx Suggestions: G On account of general inability to understand the merit for such conversion without attendant details illustrating the need for the proposed modifications. It is suggested that relevant material may be put into the public domain H

p. 616 Copy page pinpoint

A and a thorough public consultative process completed prior to finalisation of any decision regarding the same. Madhav Raman Objections: B xx xx xx ...Land use is a violation of extant heritage regulation protecting Central Vista a notified Grade 1 Heritage Area and a Special Heritage Area of LBZ as notified in MPD

2021. This proposed change interferes with the original urban design of this precinct and changes the relationship between built and unbuilt of the Central Vista. Suggestions: On account of general inability to understand the merit for such conversion without attendant details illustrating the need for the proposed modifications. It is suggested that relevant material may be put into the public domain and a thorough public consultative process completed prior to finalisation of any decision regarding the same. Pulkit Khanna Malik E Suggestions: The merits of the proposed conversion are unclear whereas the demerits are glaringly obvious. It is suggested that relevant material be put into the public domain and a thorough public consultative process completed before any decisions are finalised. Shamit Manchanda, Architect We would also like to draw your attention to the Master Plan of Delhi 2021 Sections 8.0 item 8.1 which is not sought to be changed and thereby the proposed changes seem to be in violation of the Master Plan of Delhi 2021. Suggestions: In view of the points mentioned above it is requested that the details sought are made public before proceeding with the proposed land use changes that seem to be

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 617 ORS. [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

conflicting with the Master Plan of Delhi 2021. Please A also share if any study has been undertaken to assess the impact of additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic this change of land use will cause. Punit Sethi Additional Suggestions: B (b) It is requested that the details sought are made public before proceeding with the proposed land use changes as they seem to be conflicting with the Master Plan of Delhi-2021. (c) If any study has been undertaken prior to proposing C the said land use changes to assess the impact additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic, this change of land use will cause or impact on the environment et.al. should be first said with public at large so that a participatory public process can be followed in decision making.” D Objections were also made in relation to exercise of powers of the Authority to make modifications under clause (1) of Section 11A of the Development Act. Some had highlighted that the project would reduce public space/area and the requisite approvals were not in place. We would for clarity quote some responses received by the Authority to illustrate the concerns raised: “Anil Sood xx xx xx The master Plan can be modified subject to the satisfaction of restrictions imposed under section 11A. Thus sub-section (1) of section 11A permits modifications of the Master Plan under the following circumstances: not affect important alterations in the character of the plan; and which do not relate to the extent of land-users or the standards of population density. That it is a matter of record that DDA has not conducted the Civic Survey as mandated under section 7 but has H

p. 618 Copy page pinpoint

A also violated the mandate of sub-section 1 of section 11A that prohibits change of land use in case of change of population density and altar the basic character of the plan. Meena Gupta B The proposed redevelopment reduces drastically the space available to the public for recreational public and semi-public use. This is a loss not just to the people of Delhi but to the people of India. The Central Vista is a historic as well as iconic place. The buildings are just C about a hundred years old and attempts should be made to preserve rather than demolish them. Several thousand old and very old trees will have to be cut down to make way for the buildings. Replacing these many trees is impossible. Virtually no consultation has been held with the public at large or bodies like the Urban Arts D Commission has been carried out. We request you therefore to immediately stop action on this proposal and only take it up after proper discussion with the public and expert bodies.”

E (j) The BoEH, apart from noting the submissions/ objections/ suggestions by those who appeared at the hearing, did not deliberate or record specific reasons dealing with the suggestions and objections. Having interacted with the public, BoEH did find merit in the objection regarding absence and lack of information in public domain and took specific note of the public anxiety and ‘misgivings’. Minutes of the BoEH are an incontrovertible acknowledgement that, but for indicating the present and proposed land use, no plans, layouts, drawings etc., or written matter explanatory or of descriptive nature to illustrate or explain the proposed changes and project were put in public domain. BoEH had therefore thoughtfully recommended the need to address lack of transparency concern by all departments. The recommendations made by the BoEH are as under: “(i) Regarding proposal of change of land use of Plot No. 1, it is recommended that the revised proposal for H

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 619 ORS. [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

change of land use must be taken afresh under Section A 11-A pf DD Act, 1957. (ii) Among the respondents, majority of whom are Planners/Architects, there appears to be a feeling that authentic technical information on this iconic project of Centra Vista is not available in public domain, which is leading to avoidable misgivings. Board recommends that all concerned departments need to address this concern. (iii) Keeping in view the strong reservation of the respondents, it is suggested that impact assessment studies on traffic, environment and heritage may be commissioned at the earliest. (iv) From the responses received during public hearing, it appears that the present project has not been referred to the Central Vista Committee, although in the past any such project has always been referred to the Central D Vista Committee. Authority may like to take a view on this issue and make suitable recommendations to Government of India.” (k) On 10th February 2020, the proposal for modification of the Central Vista Plan was placed before the Authority and E approved in respect of Plot Nos. 2 to 8 vide agenda item no. 18/2020. The relevant portion of minutes reads as under: “Item No. 18/2020 Regarding proposed change of land use of Plot Nos. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8.F.20(12)2019/MP F a) The proposal was presented by Joint Secretary (L&E), MoHUA, In-charge of Central Vista Development/ Redevelopment Project, who was present as Special Invitee. She apprised the details of the Project to the members of the Authority. G b) JS, MoHUA informed that during the planning of Capital City-New Delhi, the architects and urban designers - Edward Lutyens and Herbert Baker had prepared an urban design plan for entire New Delhi in such a way that all the important Government offices H

p. 620 Copy page pinpoint

A would come along the Central Vista (Rajpath). However, by the year 1931, when Delhi officially became capital of India, only five (05) buildings were constructed namely, Rashtrapati Bhawan, Sansad Bhawan, North and South Blocks and first building of the National Archives. She assured that the heritage buildings in the B Central Vista shall be conserved. c) She further informed that for this Project, the following measures are being taken up: i. No trees shall be cut during the implementation of the C project. However, some trees may be transplanted for which techniques are available. ii. Total tree cover shall increase with new plantation. iii. 100% C&D waste shall be re-cycled and utilized within the project. D iv. All the green building features will be followed by making most efficient use of resources and adopting modern day construction technologies. v. Rain Water Harvesting (RWH) structures and water conservation measures will be undertaken. E vi. Proposed development has been integrated with two metro stations in the Vista namely, Udyog Bhawan and Central Secretariat for commuting public/government employees through an underground shuttle. F vii. In the proposed scheme, the Central Government Ministries/Offices will be moved to the Central Vista thereby cutting down large scale travel across 47 Central Government Ministries/Offices’ Buildings spread in different parts of Delhi. The proposal, once implemented shall result in easing traffic flow in Lutyens’ Bunglow G Zone (LBZ) and in the city. This will result in reduction of vehicular trips thereby reducing carbon footprint, congestion, pollution and accidents. d) The recommendations of Board of Enquiry & Hearing (BoE&H) and the issues raised by the public in the H

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 621 ORS. [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

meeting held on 06.02.2020 and 07.02.2020, were deliberated in the Authority meeting. Member Engineering, DDA-cum-Chairman or BoE&H explained that as has been clarified by JS, MoHUA, the proposed project addresses all issues raised by the public in a comprehensive manner. He informed that all objections and suggestions given by the public were duly considered by the BoE&H. Various objections and suggestions which were pertaining to L&DO and Planning Department of DDA were replied to by the representatives of these respective agencies and the details are available on the record. Based on the detailed deliberations, BoE&H has recommended for issuing public notice for plot no. 1 and consideration of allowing change of land use with respect to plot no. 2to 8. e) The following facts were further elaborated by JS, MoHUA: D i. Under the proposed Development/ Redevelopment, total public space in the Central Vista is increasing by almost 100 acres. This constitutes the following: A National Bio-diversity Arboretum in 48.6 acres land on the western end of the President’s Estates is proposed E to house 1,236 endangered species in 11 different phytological zones. This facility will be open to the researchers as well as to the public. North and South Blocks which cover nearly 27 acres is proposed to be converted into National Museums F showcasing India prior to and after 1857. Nearly 25 acres of land on the Western Bank of River Yamuna is proposed to be developed as New India Garden with an iconic structure to commemorate 75 years of India’s Independence. G ii. The project also proposes to develop/re-develop the Central Vista with proper public utilities, green spaces, water bodies, landscaping etc. whose total area will be more than the existing area as 5.6 acres from the existing buildings will be added to the greenspace. Further, plot H

p. 622 Copy page pinpoint

A no. 8 located at Timarpur in Planning Zone-Chaving an area of 3.9 acres is also being added to green spaces of Delhi. iii. The area of over 90 acres currently under Hutments will be properly planned and developed into organised urban spaces. iv. All necessary approvals for buildings and the facilities will be taken from the competent authorities as and when required. f) Vice Chairman, DDA apprised that a notification number SO 3348 (E) has been issued by the Government of India on 17/10/2017, whereby as per Master Plan for Delhi (MPD) - 2021, ‘Central Government Offices’ are permitted use premise in ‘Public and Semi Public facilities’ (PSP) land use zones. Therefore, Authority is competent to allow Plot No.3,4,5 & 6, which are currently under PSP land use for housing ‘Central Government Offices’ with 1.88 acres each in the plot No. 3, 4 and 6 earmarked as Recreational (District Park). g) Additional Secretary (D), MoHUA and Member, Delhi Development Authority, explained that the Authority is competent to make the proposed modification in the Master Plan for the land uses as these will not alter the character of the Master Plan since they are in line with the Lutyens & Bakers’ plan of housing Government buildings in the Central Vista. Further, the proposal does not impact the extent of the land uses and the standards of population density as has been envisaged in the Master Plan for Delhi, (MPD) -2021. Hence, Section 11(A) (1) or Delhi Development Act, 1957, empowers the Authority to make proposed changes under consideration. Vice- Chairman DDA further corroborated this and stated that only after being satisfied that the Authority is competent under 11(A) (1) of the Act, that the proposal has been considered and submitted for Authority’s approval. Decision: After detailed deliberations, the proposal is approved as follows: H

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 623 ORS. [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

i. A public notice shall be issued for change of land use for plot number 01 from ‘Transportation’ (Bus Terminal/ parking) and ‘Recreational’ to ‘Residential’ and to be processed under Section 11-A of DD Act 1957. ii. With respect to plot Nos 02 to 07; the proposal of land use change of L&DO is approved. The proposal be submitted to MoHUA for approval/notification. iii. Change of Land Use for plot No 8 is approved and the proposal be forwarded to MoHUA for approval/ notification.” (l) On 4th March 2020, a public notice was issued with regards to plot no.1 for which L&DO had sent a revised proposal. (m) On 9th March 2020, the Special Advisory Group of Central Vista and Central Secretariat (for short, ‘Central Vista Committee’) gave its approval for the proposed change of land use in respect of plots at serial nos. 2 to 8. We shall subsequently refer to the minutes of this meeting and examine the challenge to the validity of this permission/ approval. (n) On 20th March 2020, a public notice was issued by the MoHUA accepting the modifications to the Master Plan of E Delhi – 2021 and the zonal development plan for Zone D & C. The notification dated 20th March, 2020 is as under: “MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS F (Delhi Division) NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 20th March, 2020 S.O. 1192(E).—Whereas, certain modifications which the Central Government proposed to make in the Master G Plan for Delhi-2021 / Zonal Development Plan of Zone- D (for Plot No. 02 to 07) and Zone-C (for Plot No. 08) regarding the area mentioned here under were published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, as Public Notice vide No. S.O. 4587(E) dated 21.12.2019 by the Delhi H

p. 624 Copy page pinpoint

A Development Authority in accordance with the provisions of Section 44 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (61 of 1957) inviting objections/ suggestions as required by sub-section (3) of Section 11-A of the said Act, within thirty days from the date of the said notice;

B 2. Whereas, 1,292 objections/ suggestions received with regard to the proposed modifications have been considered by the Board of Enquiry and Hearing, set up by the Delhi Development Authority and the proposed modifications were recommended in the meeting of Delhi Development Authority held on 10.02.2020; C

3. Whereas, the Central Government have after carefully considering all aspects of the matter, have decided to modify the Master Plan for Delhi-2021 / Zonal Development Plan of Zone-D & Zone-C;

D 4. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (2) of Section 11-A of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following modifications in the said Master Plan for Delhi-2021 / Zonal Development Plan of Zone-D & Zone-C, with effect from the date of Publication of this Notification E in the Gazette of India. Modifications: The land use of the following area of land falling in Zone –D and Zone-C is changed as per description listed F below:

RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 625 ORS. [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

[F.No. K-13011/6/2019-DD-I] VIRENDRA KUMAR KUSHWAHA, Under Secy.” (o) On 23rd April 2020, the Central Vista Committee granted G “no objection” to the proposed new Parliament building. We shall be referring to these minutes and the challenge subsequently.

7. Conventionally, judicial review is not much concerned with the merits of an administrative decision, but rather, with the process of arriving H

p. 626 Copy page pinpoint