Supreme Court - Daily Orders
New Delhi Municipal Council vs Association Of Concerned Citizens Of ... on 7 December, 2017
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan
1
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).
23186-23213/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-08-2017
in WPC No. 1581/2017 10-08-2017 in WPC No. 2001/2016 10-08-2017 in
WPC No. 1998/2016 10-08-2017 in WPC No. 1997/2016 10-08-2017 in WPC
No. 1996/2016 10-08-2017 in WPC No. 645/2016 10-08-2017 in WPC No.
1759/2012 10-08-2017 in WPC No. 3453/2012 10-08-2017 in WPC No.
2102/2012 10-08-2017 in WPC No. 2091/2012 10-08-2017 in WPC No.
2088/2012 10-08-2017 in WPC No. 1822/2012 10-08-2017 in WPC No.
1492/2012 10-08-2017 in WPC No. 1487/2012 10-08-2017 in WPC No.
1154/2012 10-08-2017 in WPC No. 1153/2012 10-08-2017 in WPC No.
729/2012 10-08-2017 in WPC No. 728/2012 10-08-2017 in WPC No.
7491/2011 10-08-2017 in WPC No. 7296/2011 10-08-2017 in WPC No.
363/2011 10-08-2017 in WPC No. 8679/2010 10-08-2017 in WPC No.
4047/2010 10-08-2017 in WPC No. 3074/2010 10-08-2017 in WPC No.
2315/2010 10-08-2017 in WPC No. 1985/2010 10-08-2017 in WPC No.
12689/2009 10-08-2017 in WPC No. 3348/2010 passed by the High Court
Of Delhi At New Delhi)
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ASSOCIATION OF CONCERNED CITIZENS
OF NEW DELHI & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.85615/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)
WITH
Diary No(s). 35928/2017 (XIV)
(IA No.118555/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No.118553/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP/TP [ TO BE
TAKEN UP ALONGWITH SLP(C)NO.23186-23213/2017])
Date : 07-12-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHWANI KUMAR
Date: 2017.12.07
For Petitioner(s)
16:51:17 IST
Reason: Mr. Yoginder Handoo, AOR
Mr. Nishant Kumar, Adv.
Mr. R. Verma, Adv.
Mr. Arjun Mitra, Adv.
2
Mr. Prag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv.
Mr. Ramaswamy Srinivasan, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv.
Mr. Navjot Singh, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Maninder Acharya, SR. Adv.
Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. Trideep Pais, Adv.
Ms. Deeksha Gujral, Adv.
Mr. Viplav Acharya, Adv.
Mr. Sahil Sood, Adv.
Mr. Harshul Choudhary, Adv.
Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, AOR
Mr. Abhimanyu Mahajan, Adv.
Ms. Anubha Goel, Adv.
Mr. Shaurya Vardhan K., Adv.
Mr. Rahul Kukreja, Adv.
Mr. Jayant Kumar Mehta, AOR
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aman Ahluwalia, Adv.
Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv.
Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Adv.
Ms. Aakansha Munjhal, Adv.
Mr. Nakul Gandhi, Adv.
Mr. Shravan Sahny, Adv.
Ms. Manik Karanjawala, Adv.
M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR
Mr. Subhash C. Jindal, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AOR
Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR
Mr. Sachit Jolly, Adv.
Mr. Anirudh Bakshru, Adv.
Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhay Kumar, AOR
Mr. Bilal Khan, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu, Adv.
Mr. Vineet Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv.
Mr. B.B. Jain, Adv.
Mr. Abhay Jain, Adv.
Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Pranjal Kishore, Adv.
3
Mr. Himanshu, Adv.
Ms. Aditi Gupta, AOR
Mr. S.K. Jain, Adv.
Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Gulia, Adv.
Ms. Rakhi Ray, AOR
Mr. Sanjeev Anand, AOR
Mr. Akshay Kapur, Adv.
Mr. H.M. Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. A. Gaurav, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Sharma, AOR
Mr. Sangram Patnaik, Adv.
Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR
Ms. Swayam Sidha, Adv.
Mr. Sangam Singh, Adv
Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR
Ms. Megha Karnwal, Adv.
Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Though we have heard the arguments for quite sometime, it may be mentioned that the writ petitioners who have filed the writ petitions in the High Court had challenged the validity of New Delhi Municipal Council (Determination of Annual Rent) Byelaws, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Byelaws, 2009') on various grounds. However, since the High Court accepted the plea of these writ petitioners to the effect that the Byelaws, 2009 are ultra virus the provisions of Section 63 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, it has not gone into other grounds of challenge raised by the writ petitioners (respondents herein).
In these circumstances, it is stated by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, 4 learned senior counsel appearing for respondents in one of these petitions that it would be more appropriate if the arguments are heard on all other grounds as well so that the entire case is dealt with by this Court itself and finality is achieved thereby. This suggestions is acceptable to all other learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as respondents.
In these circumstances, the parties are directed to bring short synopsis stating the other grounds on which the Byelaws,2009 are challenged. This may be done within a period of three weeks from today. The matters are listed for further arguments on 16.01.2018 as part-heard.
We find that some of the house owners/assessees have filed the special leave petitions challenging the High Court's order as they want to pay the property tax in accordance with the Byelaws, 2009. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the New Delhi Municipal Council submits that those who want to pay the property tax in accordance with the Byelaws, 2009, the New Delhi Municipal Council will have no objection to accept the tax from those assesses. In view of this, all such parties or other assessees, who may not have come to Court, shall be at liberty to pay the property tax in accordance with the Byelaws, 2009. This, however, shall be subject to the final outcome of these matters.
(ASHWANI KUMAR) (MADHU NARULA) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER