The Delhi High Court recently adjudicated upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning alleged unlawful construction within the regulated periphery of Ajmeri Gate, a monument of historical and archaeological significance.
The petition cited egregious violations of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, alongside contraventions of municipal building codes. However, the court ultimately dismissed the plea, finding it legally untenable and procedurally defective.
A division bench comprising Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela determined that the PIL was neither substantiated by legitimate public interest nor supported by demonstrable legal standing.
The court emphasized that the petitioners had failed to establish a bona fide concern and had approached the court in a manner inconsistent with established PIL jurisprudence. The ruling reinforces judicial scrutiny over the misuse of PILs, particularly in cases where petitioners lack a direct and substantial nexus to the matter at hand.
During the proceedings, the bench inquired about the petitioners’ prior interventions, particularly their actions while the alleged unauthorized construction was underway.
The petitioner, Mirza Aurangzeb, a self-identified local resident, claimed to have lodged multiple complaints with the relevant authorities and submitted a Right to Information (RTI) request to ascertain the extent of regulatory oversight. Despite these assertions, the court found no compelling evidence to warrant judicial intervention.
The PIL underscored the legal framework governing heritage conservation, particularly Sections 19 and 20B of the 1958 Act, which prohibit unauthorized construction within protected or regulated zones.
Additionally, the petition cited Section 20D, which mandates that any construction activity within such areas necessitates prior approval or a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the competent authority. The petitioner alleged that property owners had flagrantly disregarded these statutory mandates, proceeding with construction despite their actions being in direct violation of both central and municipal regulations.
Of particular concern in the petition was the apparent administrative inertia of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The petitioner contended that despite the disputed property being officially “booked” by the MCD for unauthorized construction, no demolition or remedial measures had been executed, allowing the unlawful structures to remain intact.
This alleged regulatory failure raises broader questions about institutional accountability in the enforcement of urban planning and heritage preservation laws.
The court’s dismissal of the PIL has reignited discourse on the efficacy of existing legal frameworks for monument protection and the procedural integrity of public interest litigation. While the ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to preventing the misuse of PIL mechanisms, it simultaneously highlights the necessity of ensuring robust enforcement of conservation statutes.
The case serves as a crucial reference point in the ongoing dialogue concerning the balance between heritage preservation and urban development, as well as the judicial oversight of administrative compliance in such matters.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
