The Delhi Government has told the Supreme Court that it is “impossible” to construct bus shelters at about 1,800 locations in the Capital, roughly accounting for 40 per cent of the existing 4,627 bus stops in the city. Accepting this position of the Delhi Government, the Court recently dismissed a five-year-old PIl, filed by one NGO Voice of India highlighting the plight faced by commuters using public transport.
Replying to the petitioner’s charge that majority of the bus stops in the Capital do not have a bus shelter, the Delhi Government in an affidavit informed the Court, “Presently there are 4,627 bus stop locations all over Delhi…1,800 locations are such where there are no shelters for which routed plate on electronic poles is provided to demarcate a stoppage point.”
The NGO represented by its Chairman Dhanesh Ieshdhan, who argued in person, pointed out the perils a common man has to bear, braving the sun and rain while waiting at a bus stop without any shelter. The affidavit added, “Due to lack of sufficient space at certain locations, it may be impossible to construct a bus stop, however, the Government is looking into the issue."
Satisfied with the assurance of Delhi Government that all concerns are being taken care of, the Bench of Justices PC Ghose and RF Nariman refused to hear the petitioner any further and dismissed the petition on February 14.
The petitioner exposed the lie of the Government by pointing to bus shelters situated within a three-kilometre radius of the Court where not a single one had a bus shelter. The PIl admitted in 2012 lingered on with Delhi and adjoining States of Haryana and UP seeking time to file status reports as directed from time to time by the Court. Besides bus shelters, the PIl flagged several concerns which included unclean seats in buses and lack of public toilets and drinking water amenities at bus terminals.
Delhi Government’s senior advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha further read out the affidavit to show how DTC ensures all its buses are maintained clean . The petitioner protested that the Court was being taken for a ride. Despite the petitioner being proved right, the Court refused to proceed with the matter and dismissed the same.