2006 (1) TMI 649 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the sanction of building plans for additions/alterations to convert an existing cinema into a multiplex-cum-commercial complex.
2. Adequacy of parking facilities and impact on traffic circulation.
3. Compliance with the Master Plan of Delhi, Unified Building Bye-Laws, and the Cinematograph Act.
4. Timeliness of the writ petition and the doctrine of laches.
5. Judicial restraint and the separation of powers between the judiciary and executive authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Sanction of Building Plans:
The writ petition sought to quash the sanction of building plans for converting an existing cinema into a multiplex-cum-commercial complex. The petitioner alleged that the construction was unauthorized and in violation of the Master Plan of Delhi, Unified Building Bye-Laws, and the Cinematograph Act. The respondent countered that all necessary sanctions and approvals were obtained from relevant authorities, including the MCD, DUAC, and DCP (Traffic), and that the plans complied with all statutory requirements. The court found that the necessary approvals were indeed obtained, and the construction was in compliance with the sanctioned building plans.

2. Adequacy of Parking Facilities and Impact on Traffic Circulation:
The petitioner argued that the multiplex would attract a large number of cars, leading to traffic congestion and insufficient parking facilities. The respondent provided evidence that the parking space was increased from 78 to 98 car spaces, exceeding the statutory requirement. The court noted that the DCP (Traffic) had prescribed entry and exit gates, and these directives were followed. The court concluded that the parking provisions were adequate and met the requirements under the Master Plan, 2001, and other relevant regulations.

3. Compliance with the Master Plan of Delhi, Unified Building Bye-Laws, and the Cinematograph Act:
The petitioner claimed that the construction violated the Master Plan of Delhi and the Unified Building Bye-Laws. The respondent demonstrated that the plans were sanctioned in accordance with the Master Plan, 2001, and other relevant laws. The court observed that the authorities had considered all relevant standards and requirements, and the sanctioned plans conformed to the provisions of the Building Bye-Laws, Master Plan, and Delhi Cinematograph Rules.

4. Timeliness of the Writ Petition and the Doctrine of Laches:
The court emphasized the doctrine of laches, noting that the writ petition was filed after the construction was completed and the application for the Completion Certificate was submitted. The court held that the petition should have been dismissed on the ground of laches, as it was filed after unreasonable delay without any proper explanation. The court cited several precedents to support the principle that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and may be denied if there is undue delay in filing the petition.

5. Judicial Restraint and the Separation of Powers:
The court underscored the importance of judicial restraint and the separation of powers between the judiciary and executive authorities. It stated that granting permissions and regulating traffic are executive functions, and it is inappropriate for the judiciary to encroach upon these functions. The court reiterated that it should defer to the opinion of administrative authorities unless there is a clear violation of law or something shockingly arbitrary. The court found no illegality or shocking arbitrariness in the decisions of the MCD and other authorities, and thus, it was not appropriate for the court to interfere.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal, upholding the sanction order of the MCD dated 4.12.2002. The court emphasized the need for judicial restraint and the doctrine of laches, concluding that the writ petition was filed after unreasonable delay and that the construction complied with all relevant statutory requirements.