The Delhi High Court, in a recent ruling, dismissed a review petition seeking modification of an earlier order pertaining to children’s ingress/egress from a school located within a residential colony. The court underscored that the convenience of colony residents should not supersede the broader interest of the public.

The review petition aimed to alter a previous order directing parents to drop off their children outside the colony, while the school was tasked with providing personnel to regulate traffic within the colony. The primary grievance highlighted heavy traffic congestion in the area caused by parents parking their cars while dropping off their children at the school.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, while dismissing the review petition, emphasized that children, especially those in primary classes, should not be expected to walk long distances in adverse weather conditions between the school and the colony gate. The court suggested approaching authorities to manage the traffic congestion during peak hours, indicating that it’s a matter that falls outside the school’s domain.

The court reaffirmed the school’s legitimate operation with proper permissions in a designated area. It declined the petitioner’s attempt to reargue the case and reiterated that restricting the school’s ingress/egress would create problems for both the institution and the public.

Furthermore, the judgment highlighted the limited scope of a review, noting no apparent errors warranting reconsideration. However, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to engage with authorities and local residents to resolve traffic issues, recognizing the problem as temporary and arising only during specific hours.

Additionally, the court reiterated that vehicles dropping or picking up children from the school should not remain parked in the colony for the entire school duration.

The case Initially stemmed from the school’s plea seeking unrestricted movement for students, parents, teachers, and the public, citing road closures in the Paschim Vihar area. The court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the closure of service lanes but retaining the right to revisit the matter if any future hindrances in ingress/egress arose.

Legal representation included ASC Udit Malik with Advocate Vishal Chanda for GNCTD and Advocates Anil Sethi, Swaran Kamal, and Samarth Rai Sethi for the review petitioner/respondent No.4.