‘Whether the corridor in South Delhi was on a road less than 45 metres wide?’
The Delhi High Court on Monday sought a reply from the Delhi Government’s Transport Department on a petition seeking review of an order dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) for scrapping the BRT corridor in the Capital.
Directing the Department to file the reply by November 21, a Division Bench of the Court comprising Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Manmohan Singh asked it to clarify whether the corridor between Ambedkar Nagar and Moolchand Crossing in South Delhi was on a road less than 45 metres wide as claimed by the petitioner, Nyaya Bhoomi, in the matter.
Counsel for the Nyaya Bhoomi submitted that the Court while dismissing the PIL had committed a mathematical error by concluding that the width of the road on which the dedicated corridor for buses was operative was 45 metres by calculating that 45 metres was equal to 100 feet and saying that it met the mandatory requirement of 45 metres wide road for launching a BRT corridor as per the Delhi Master Plan 2021.
The petitioner further submitted that if the width of the road on the corridor was 100 feet then it could not be utilised for exclusive plying of buses as the Master Plan said that a BRT dedicated corridor could only be launched on a road measuring 45 metres and above in width.
The existing width of the road of the corridor was just 30 metres as 100 feet was equal to 30 metres which was against the stipulation of the Master Plan for launching a BRT corridor on a road having 45 metres width and above.
Another point on which the petitioner wants the Court to review its order is non-compliance of the Master Plan’s mandate for the maximum utilisation of the road network in the city. It says that 45 per cent of the total space on the corridor is wasted due to the divider on it.
The Court had on October 18 dismissed the PIL seeking scrapping of the dedicated corridor and allowing plying of other motorised vehicles along with buses on it, saying that it would not interfere with the policy matter aimed at promoting public transport as it was neither illegal nor arbitrary and unconstitutional.
It had also said that the corridor was as per the requirements of the Master Plan.