Editor Mr.Mayank Rawat ( Chief Editor Mr. Rohit Mishra )
New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a PIL seeking directions to the authorities to protect peacocks from electrocution.
A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela declined to examine the plea, saying the petitioner should approach the authorities concerned with its grievances as courts couldn’t legislate or frame laws.
The court was hearing a plea by an NGO seeking the framing of regulations to protect the national bird from coming into contact with electrical installations of discoms. It complained that these discoms, which supply electricity to various parts of Delhi, have left their electric poles open leading to electrocution of the birds.
HC pointed out that the NGO itself claimed to have made representations to the Delhi govt’s Department of Forests and Wildlife, the secretary of the power department, and other authorities as late as April 3 and moved court three days later. It wondered how the petition could be filed within a week of giving the representations to the authorities, without waiting for their responses.
“We don’t encourage such matters. We may have sympathy with your cause, but we cannot appreciate the filing of petitions like this,” the bench told the counsel, adding that it doesn’t have a “magic wand” to resolve issues when there is a whole system put in place for meeting people’s grievances. Only in case of a failure on the part of authorities should they move court.
The petitioner said it was urging directions to the authorities to safeguard the national bird from being electrocuted on electrical poles and seeking regulations to protect them from electrocution.
HC then asked the petitioner to approach the legislature if there was no law in this regard, as courts could neither legislate nor frame regulations.
New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a PIL seeking directions to the authorities to protect peacocks from electrocution.
A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela declined to examine the plea, saying the petitioner should approach the authorities concerned with its grievances as courts couldn’t legislate or frame laws.
The court was hearing a plea by an NGO seeking the framing of regulations to protect the national bird from coming into contact with electrical installations of discoms. It complained that these discoms, which supply electricity to various parts of Delhi, have left their electric poles open leading to electrocution of the birds.
HC pointed out that the NGO itself claimed to have made representations to the Delhi govt’s Department of Forests and Wildlife, the secretary of the power department, and other authorities as late as April 3 and moved court three days later. It wondered how the petition could be filed within a week of giving the representations to the authorities, without waiting for their responses.
“We don’t encourage such matters. We may have sympathy with your cause, but we cannot appreciate the filing of petitions like this,” the bench told the counsel, adding that it doesn’t have a “magic wand” to resolve issues when there is a whole system put in place for meeting people’s grievances. Only in case of a failure on the part of authorities should they move court.
The petitioner said it was urging directions to the authorities to safeguard the national bird from being electrocuted on electrical poles and seeking regulations to protect them from electrocution.
HC then asked the petitioner to approach the legislature if there was no law in this regard, as courts could neither legislate nor frame regulations.
A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela declined to examine the plea, saying the petitioner should approach the authorities concerned with its grievances as courts couldn’t legislate or frame laws.
The court was hearing a plea by an NGO seeking the framing of regulations to protect the national bird from coming into contact with electrical installations of discoms. It complained that these discoms, which supply electricity to various parts of Delhi, have left their electric poles open leading to electrocution of the birds.
HC pointed out that the NGO itself claimed to have made representations to the Delhi govt’s Department of Forests and Wildlife, the secretary of the power department, and other authorities as late as April 3 and moved court three days later. It wondered how the petition could be filed within a week of giving the representations to the authorities, without waiting for their responses.
“We don’t encourage such matters. We may have sympathy with your cause, but we cannot appreciate the filing of petitions like this,” the bench told the counsel, adding that it doesn’t have a “magic wand” to resolve issues when there is a whole system put in place for meeting people’s grievances. Only in case of a failure on the part of authorities should they move court.
The petitioner said it was urging directions to the authorities to safeguard the national bird from being electrocuted on electrical poles and seeking regulations to protect them from electrocution.
HC then asked the petitioner to approach the legislature if there was no law in this regard, as courts could neither legislate nor frame regulations.
New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a PIL seeking directions to the authorities to protect peacocks from electrocution.
A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela declined to examine the plea, saying the petitioner should approach the authorities concerned with its grievances as courts couldn’t legislate or frame laws.
The court was hearing a plea by an NGO seeking the framing of regulations to protect the national bird from coming into contact with electrical installations of discoms. It complained that these discoms, which supply electricity to various parts of Delhi, have left their electric poles open leading to electrocution of the birds.
HC pointed out that the NGO itself claimed to have made representations to the Delhi govt’s Department of Forests and Wildlife, the secretary of the power department, and other authorities as late as April 3 and moved court three days later. It wondered how the petition could be filed within a week of giving the representations to the authorities, without waiting for their responses.
“We don’t encourage such matters. We may have sympathy with your cause, but we cannot appreciate the filing of petitions like this,” the bench told the counsel, adding that it doesn’t have a “magic wand” to resolve issues when there is a whole system put in place for meeting people’s grievances. Only in case of a failure on the part of authorities should they move court.
The petitioner said it was urging directions to the authorities to safeguard the national bird from being electrocuted on electrical poles and seeking regulations to protect them from electrocution.
HC then asked the petitioner to approach the legislature if there was no law in this regard, as courts could neither legislate nor frame regulations.
Mayank Rawat
