Mitali Palnitkar
Published On: February 14, 2022 at 17:26 IST
On February 14, the Delhi High Court issued a Notice to National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) on an Application seeking Stay on construction of Dwarka Expressway.
The Division Bench comprised of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh. The Respondents were directed to file their responses by March 15 when the Case will be heard next.
The Plea was filed through Advocate Anand Varma and was argued by Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan.
The Application was moved in an Appeal pending before the High Court with similar prayers.
Though the Court issued Notices on the Plea in September 2021, the Petitioner Alleged that the Authorities continued with the construction without any regard for the project’s impact on the environment and residents of the area.
The Plea stated that the construction was going on in Sectors 22 and 23 in Dwarka under the guise of executing the Dwarka Expressway Package 2 without any mandatory permissions and approvals.
Advocate Bhushan informed the Court that though the Court issued Notices to the Respondents almost 6 months back, the Case was not taken up since then. He argued that despite having no environmental clearance or public consultation, the Authorities continued with the construction.
On the ground of gross violation of norms, Bhushan prayed for an Ex-Parte Stay on the project, but the Court denied the request.
It was submitted that large number of colonies and schools are present in the area where highway is being built. Even the Supreme Court held that public consultation is required.
The Application argued that the Respondent took advantage of pendency of the matter and proceeded with construction activity on site. Despite repeated objections made by the Appellants, the Respondents continued with full-fledged construction of flyover by undertaking activities like digging of roads and construction of pillars.
Earlier, the Petition was dismissed by a Single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court on the ground that Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) clearance was not required.
The Order was challenged in the Supreme Court, which stated that the relief against the Order lies before a Division Bench of High Court through Letters Patent Appeal.
