Delhi High Court: In a petition filed to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging that the narrow public street in front of the petitioner’s house and shop in Badarpur, New Delhi was being utilized for parking vehicles by the residents (respondents 4 to 10) of the same locality, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Narula, J. held that the matter did not warrant judicial intervention under the constitutional writ jurisdiction and that the petitioner must address the urban planning issues and private nuisance claims through other appropriate civil remedies.
Background
The petitioner submitted that parking vehicles in front of her residence and shop was unlawful since it caused a traffic problem which had to be resolved by the police. It was also contended that houses of the respondents 4 to 10 did not fall in the petitioner’s lane and that they had influence over the local police which allowed them to continue parking their vehicles in an unauthorized manner.
Analysis and Decision
After considering the facts of the matter, the Court opined that this was a primary dispute of parking between the residents of the colony.
The Court perused the photographs annexed to the petition and stated that the vehicles in question appeared to be parked in a public street which, by its nature, was a public thoroughfare accessible to all members of the community.
The Court said that while the present situation was inconvenient, it was important to acknowledge that the issue arose from a broader urban challenge rather than a specific illegal act necessitating immediate police intervention.
The Court stated that the problem described by the petitioner reflected a common predicament faced by many urban residents in Delhi particularly in densely populated localities with limited infrastructure to accommodate the growing number of private vehicles.
Further, the Court stated that the present issue was symptomatic of a larger urban planning failure, where colonies had been developed without sufficient foresight regarding parking facilities and had left the residents with no alternative but to park in the streets. Thus, the Court felt the need to exercise restraint before intervening in such a complex issue.
The Court said that it could neither address broader urban infrastructure deficiencies nor could it single out certain individuals when the problem is common for the city at large. It was mentioned that the absence of dedicated parking spaces in residential colonies was a civic issue which required a policy-based response from municipal authorities and not judicial intervention in individual disputes.
The Court noted that the petitioner had attempted to cast the present matter as a law enforcement issue by involving the local police and said that the Court was not persuaded to treat the matter as one which demanded resources of the police authorities. It was stated that any resolution to this matter would necessarily involve a comprehensive planning by the relevant urban authorities such as the municipal corporation, RWA(s), and the police authorities.
The Court said that the petitioner’s allegations against the respondents constituted a private tort of nuisance which could be adjudicated by a competent civil court and that it did not have the jurisdiction to determine private tort claims under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Lastly, while disposing of the petition, the Court held that this was not a case where judicial intervention under the constitutional writ jurisdiction was warranted since the matter primarily involved urban planning issues and private nuisance claims which must be addressed through appropriate civil remedies.
[Surmila v. Commissioner of Police, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6551, Decided on 17-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner — Advocate Hem Kumar, Advocate Lokesh Kr. Sharma, Party-in-person
For Respondents — ASC Puneet Yadav, Advocate Jatin Singh
Buy Constitution of India HERE
