Delhi High Court raps AAP government, civic bodies over lack of action to make buildings safe from earthquake

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday lashed out at the Arvind Kejriwal-led AAP government and civic bodies over lack of action to make buildings in the national capital safe from the earthquake.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan pulled up Delhi government and the civic bodies for non-implementation of action plan for ensuring seismic stability of buildings in the national capital.

The bench made this observation while hearing a plea moved by lawyer Arpit Bhargava on the issue of lack of seismic stability of buildings in Delhi,

The high court said that an earthquake waits for no one and several earthquakes of varied intensity had jolted Delhi in the recent past.

The Delhi government and all the civic agency had filed an affidavit in the high court in which they said that an action plan is ready to deal with the earthquake and they need three years.

Necessary steps will be taken by first marking the High-Rise Buildings and then work will be done on the Low-Rise Building, they said in the affidavit. However, the High Court got angry on this and said that the earthquake does not wait for three years and can come anytime. All officers should do their work.

Unsatisfied with the replies filed by the Delhi government and the municipal bodies, the bench said the steps taken or proposed to make the city safe from earthquake are just "paper tigers".

Petitioner and lawyer Arpit Bhargava said the bench observed that the authorities did not appear to have implemented the court's earlier directions in the matter and the action plan made by the AAP government.

The petitioner further said the court had directed the Delhi government and the municipal bodies to file status reports indicating at least 25 buildings in each of their jurisdictions where the action plan has been implemented.

The high court then listed the matter for hearing on July 8. The bench also observed that on paper very good and "nicely worded" guidelines/notifications have been drafted, but on the ground they do not appear to have been implemented.

The High Court also observed that good drafting (of guidelines) has nothing to do with implementation.