Delhi High Court - Orders
Ramesh Dugar Convener Area Development ... vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation And ... on 7 August, 2020
Author: Hima Kohli
Bench: Hima Kohli, Subramonium Prasad
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6455/2015
RAMESH DUGAR CONVENER AREA DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE SAINIK FARMS ..... Petitioner
Through: None
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with
Mr.Abhigyan Siddhant, Advocate for UOI.
Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, ASC for GNCTD
with Ms.Urvi Mohan, Advocate.
Mr.Sanjeev Sagar, Standing Counsel for DDA
with Ms.Nazia Parveen, Advocate.
Mr.Vivek Kohli, Mr.Lokesh Bhola and Mr.Mudit
Gupta, Advocates for the applicant in CM APPL.
18323-24/2020.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 07.08.2020 HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING.
CM No. 18323/2020 (by the applicant for direction)
1. This is an application filed by the applicant praying inter alia for grant of at least 30 days to complete the repair activity at property No.104, Western Avenue, Sainik Farm, New Delhi. Secondly, the applicant seeks directions to the police officers and the representatives of the respondent No.1/SDMC to issue him a prior notice before taking any steps to carry out W.P.(C) 6455/2015 Page 1 of 4 any kind of demolition of the subject property.
2. On 29.04.2019, the petitioner had referred to an application moved by the residents of the Sainik Farm (CM No.46644/2018) wherein they had sought permission to make repairs and carry out white wash of their houses. Taking note of the said application, the court had directed the petitioner to file an affidavit indicating inter alia the details and specifics of the houses where repairs/white wash was required to be done. It was also directed that the affidavit shall indicate the nature of damage to the houses, the manner in which the repairs were intended to be done and the details of the material required for carrying out the repairs/white wash. In terms of the said order, an affidavit was filed by the petitioner giving the details of the repairs required to be carried out in case of the 93 residents and the respondents were directed to verify the said details and submit a report.
3. On 29.05.2019, on going through the Status Report filed by the respondent No.1/SDMC, it was noted that the 93 residents did require to undertake certain repairs, white wash and construction of boundary walls as indicated in a detailed chart filed with the Status Report. Accordingly, each of the 93 persons were directed to file their individual affidavits with the respondent No.1/SDMC stating inter alia that they would carry out the repairs/white wash and construction of boundary wall as indicated by them in the application and that they will not do anything to violate the earlier orders passed by the court. After the aforesaid permission was granted to all the 93 residents including the applicant herein, the applicant approached the respondent No.1/SDMC and the SDMC issued a permission letter dated 21.08.2019, informing him to complete the repairs, white washing and construction of boundary wall in terms of the orders passed by this court W.P.(C) 6455/2015 Page 2 of 4 within one month. It was also directed that after the said repairs/renovation work is complete, the applicant will inform the department about the same along with still photographs and videography.
4. It is the version of the applicant that he was not permitted to carry out any repairs/renovation work in the subject premises for the past one year and that he has had to approach the court by moving this application only for the said reason. Mr.Vivek Kohli, learned counsel for the applicant states that in the meantime, the local police and officers of the respondent No.1/SDMC are trying to harass the applicant and are taking steps to demolish the existing construction in the premises.
5. On enquiring from learned counsel for the applicant as to why did the applicant not undertake the renovation work within a period of 30 days, the time granted by SDMC, he states that the applicant did start the renovation work but he was stopped by the officers of the SDMC. However, there is no document placed on record to demonstrate that the applicant had written to the respondent No.1/SDMC pointing out that he was being unauthorizedly stopped by its officers from carrying out the renovation/repair work or for that matter to the local police with a complaint against the purported illegal action taken by the SDMC. It has taken a whole year for the applicant to approach this court seeking a further period of 1 month to carry out the construction activity without any plausible explanation for the delay.
6. We are not inclined to grant any further time to the applicant as it is apparent that he has slept over the matter and approached the court only upon being threatened with demolition by the respondent No.1/SDMC. So far as the said threat of demolition is concerned, it is for the applicant to seek relief before the competent court/forum, as may be advised. Under the W.P.(C) 6455/2015 Page 3 of 4 garb of filing of the present application, that too in a public interest litigation, the applicant cannot seek any restraint orders against the respondents. For the aforesaid reason, the prayer made in the application is declined and the same is dismissed.
CM No. 18324/2020 (for impleadment) Learned counsel for the applicant states that he does not wish to press this application in view of the orders passed in CM No.18323/2020, as above. Accordingly, the application is disposed of as not pressed.
HIMA KOHLI, J SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J AUGUST 07, 2020 tr/rkb W.P.(C) 6455/2015 Page 4 of 4