Delhi High Court Directs Centre to View a Single Nodal Agency for Disaster Management Operations in NCR

Must Read

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Follow us

Delhi High Court had directed Central Government to deem the petition a representation. This aims for the appointment/designation of a single nodal agency. It is to carry out disaster management operations in the National Capital Region. NCR is also under the National Capital Region Planning Board Act (NCRPB Act), 1985. It also observes the National Disaster Management Act (NDM Act), 2005 (Arjun Narang vs UOI & Ors).

Brief Facts of the Case 

Arjun Narang had filed this petition to seek directions to the Central Government. This was to install the Regional Plan 2021 under the NCRPB Act, 1985. This measure was in relation to medical infrastructure and disaster management. Enactment of the NCRPB Act viewed to settle and regulate the development of the NCR. It also sought to avoid careless growth in areas under UP, and Rajasthan.

Contentions 

The Petitioner mentioned a ‘Study on Health Infrastructure in NCR’. It also got published by NCRPB in December 2015. There were several key gaps in the health infrastructure of Delhi and other NCR regions. Therefore, this resulted in their disorderly progress. Thus, the petitioner demands directions to the NCR region’s Central and State Governments. It also asked them to work in a team and provide a single set of parameters/directions/guidelines. The same was in relation to health infrastructure and disaster management. All should be in agreement with a common COVID-19 response plan.

The petitioner relied on Section 7 of the National Capital Region Planning Board Act. They also stated that the respondents must put in place the Regional Plans under the Act. They should apply the suggestions qua health infrastructure and disaster management. Thus, this was to prepare the region for the current and any future disaster. The approach requires Central Govt to install the Regional Plan 2021 under the NCRPB Act. The Petitioner put forward that respondents’ treatment of PIL as representation would suffice. It sought the decisions to be as per the law. It asks account of the provisions of the NCRPB Act, 1985, that comes with the National Disaster Management Act, 2005.

Court’s Observation 

The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan had been setup. The proceedings took place via Video Conferencing. Advocates Pavan Narang, Shantanu Singh appeared along with petitioner-in-person. While, Standing Counsel Amit Mahajan and Advocates Dhruv Pande, Gitesh Chopra represented UOI. It also included ASG Chetan Sharma as representative of UOI. Meanwhile, Advocate Rishikesh Kumar appeared for Delhi Government. Moreover, Advocates Mishal Viz, Satish Kumar along with Mr. Anil Grover represented Haryana Government.

The Court observed the limited submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It requested the concerned respondent authorities to consider the grievances in the petition. This included the confirmation of work under a single nodal agency. The work should be under the NCRPB Act, 1985 and NDM Act, 2005. The Court said that this exercise would start out to practice as early as possible.

Court’s Decision 

According to the various considerations mentioned above, the petition got disposed off.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -