NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought a response from the centre, Delhi government and Delhi University (DU) on a petition seeking hostel facilities in all the DU colleges.
A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notice to the central government, Delhi government and Delhi University on a PIL filed in the wake of a building collapse in Satya Niketan in south campus, resulting in seven deaths and multiple injuries.
The bench directed the respondents to file their replies by September 25, when the matter will again be taken up with another PIL on the same incident.
The bench, however, questioned the mentioning the University Grants Commission (UGC) as a respondent party in the petition and directed the petitioner to delete it from the array of parties.
“PIL is a very serious business,” the bench said, and directed the petitioner, Vinor Jhakar, to file an amended memo of parties within a week.
The petitioner claimed that “the other PIL had different asks, including compensation for the kin of deceased and injured persons.”
“This petition seeks a direction to every college to have hostel facilities for students,” the petitioner said.
The high court on Monday had said the building collapse was "most unfortunate", while it asked the authorities concerned to double up the efforts in the rescue operations to save 'human lives'.
The court directed the MCD to conduct an audit of PGs and hostels within one week.
The bench said not only the building owners, but also the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the DU, which has failed to provide adequate housing facilities to outstation students, are responsible for the tragedy.
The students are forced to take shelter in private PGs due to lack of housing facilities provided by the varsity, the bench said.
The bench, while hearing the PIL, also directed the DU to provide details of outstation students and available hostel facilities. It further asked the MCD to explain whether any regulatory framework exists for PG accommodations.
The bench further sought details of valid building permissions and any lapse by concerned authorities.