‘Penalty imposed by Delhi HC is legitimate’: SC slams petitioners’ enchantment in opposition to Central Vista

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed an enchantment filed in opposition to the May 31 judgment of the Delhi High Court refusing to halt the development of the Central Vista redevelopment challenge amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
A Bench comprising of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose lashed out on the petitioners for focusing on a single public challenge when development actions for comparable tasks are in progress all over the place else.
Justice Maheshwari pointedly questioned Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, showing for the petitioners on why was this one challenge singled out. “Was honest research conducted about the kinds of construction work that were going on? Is that reflected in your petition?” he requested. 
Referring to annexures within the plea, Luthra responded, “We had challenged the permission obtained for Central Vista…We also placed on record the DDMA order which permitted the on-site construction. We placed on record the permission letter from CPWD…movement passes issued were also placed stating it should be allowed as it is an essential service. We stated that it is not an essential service.”
However, the Bench repeatedly made it clear that the challenge actions had been continuing in compliance with all protocols as noticed within the High Court judgement.
“Your concern was the project is non-compliant. But when there is a finding that it is compliant then how is the petition being pursued?” stated Justice Khanwilkar concluded.
Luthra then argued that his plea to halt development was at a time when the pandemic was raging. The Bench then questioned his intention to file an enchantment in opposition to the High Court order since Luthra claimed his concern was solely restricted to a sure interval and that his concern was responded to by the federal government and the High Court.
“More particularly, it is during the pendency of the petition, it was placed on record that project was fully complied. This affidavit was not challenged. Despite that, the Petitioners pursued the petition for reasons best known to them,” learn the order.
Order: More notably, it’s through the pendency of the petition, it was positioned on report that challenge was absolutely complied. This affidavit was not challenged. Despite that, the Petitioners pursued the petition for causes finest recognized to them.#SupremeCourt #CentralVista— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) June 29, 2021
Shifting the goalpost, Luthra additionally questioned the wonderful levied in opposition to his purchasers and petitioners Anya Malhotra, a translator, and Sohail Hashmi, a ‘historian’ and documentary filmmaker.
Clarifying that the wonderful can’t be waived off contemplating the plea was extremely motivated, the order concluded, “They cannot now challenge the findings of HC whose opinion is a possible view. The imposition of Rs. 1 lakhs by HC was on the basis that petition only with regard to one public project and was motivated. We dismiss the plea.”
Order: They can not now problem the findings of HC whose opinion is a doable view. The imposition of Rs. 1 lakhs by HC was on the idea that petition solely with regard to 1 public challenge and was motivated. We dismiss the plea. #SupremeCourt #CentralVista— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) June 29, 2021
The Court ultimately went on to dismiss the enchantment, stating that no interference with the Delhi High Court judgment was warranted.
“Questionable PILs have caused problems to our system. PIL has its own sanctity and is for all of us. But, this is not the way to pursue this,” remarked Justice Maheshwari earlier than dismissing the plea. 
Justice Dinesh Maheshwari: Questionable PILs have triggered issues to our system. PIL has its personal sanctity and is for all of us. But, this isn’t the way in which to pursue this. Matter is over. #SupremeCourt #CentralVista— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) June 29, 2021
Delhi High Court order
The Delhi Court in May had dismissed the plea searching for suspension of Central Vista challenge work and imposed a wonderful of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner for shifting a motivated plea. 
Solicitor General Tushar Mehra, representing the Centre, stated that the petition was a “facade” and a “disguise” to stall the challenge which was agreed by the Bench who declared the petition to be extremely motivated.