The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking a direction to the authorities to construct an interchange station on the metro line, which connects Noida from Janak Puri West, and the Airport Express line.
The court observed that there was no "arbitrariness or irrationality" in the decision taken by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) in not having a interchange station near Shankar Vihar as it was technically not feasible.
A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath noted that the court would "respect the opinion of experts", who have taken the decision based on technical parameters.
"It is true that some section of the population may have been benefited in case an interchange station was constructed as sought for by the petitioner. However, it is a decision taken by the respondent (DMRC) keeping in view the technical parameters," the bench said.
"The material placed on record do not show any gross arbitrariness or irrationality in the decision taken. Accordingly, we see no ground to pass any directions in the present public interest litigation," it said.
Petitioner Sanjeev K Gulati had sought a direction to constitute a committee for studying the feasibility of the interchange station at Shankar Vihar on the intersection of line eight, from Botanical Garden in Noida to Janak Puri West, cutting across the Airport Express line.
He had contended that Airport Express line was intended to provide a convenient entry to IGI Airport, especially for the passengers from New Delhi Railway Station, and DMRC has been struggling to improve ridership on the line since it took over its operation in 2013.
DMRC, in its counter affidavit filed before the court, had said interchange station at Shankar Vihar was not contemplated while constructing the Airport Express Line.
It had also contended that Airport Express Line is a high speed line and if a station was sought to be constructed, the line would have to be stopped which would have adverse effect.
"Hence, the issues pertaining to the route which metro line may follow, the area which it may cover and the selection of stations are factors in which court would normally not interfere," the bench said.
