Delhi High Court - Orders
Mount Kailash Residents Association vs Mount Kailash Tower on 7 December, 2023
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 833/2019 & CM APPL. 25277/2019
MOUNT KAILASH RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rohan Dewan, Advocate
versus
MOUNT KAILASH TOWER ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Inderjeet Saroop and Mr. Raghav
Saroop, Advocates
Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr.
Kushal and Mr. Subhrodeep Saha,
Advocates for SDMC
Mr. Shaurya, Advocate for Mr.
Vaibhav Agnihotri, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 07.12.2023
1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that subsequent to the filing of this petition, there have been material developments. He states that Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD') has granted permission to the Petitioner to re-install the gate/boom barrier and directed Respondent No.1 to re-build the illegally demolished boundary wall. 1.1. He seeks and is granted two (2) weeks' time to place on record the additional documents, along with the list of dates. 1.2. He fairly states that though the boom barrier stands reinstalled, the permission granted by MCD to install the same has been challenged by This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/12/2023 at 04:26:44 Respondent No. 1 in W.P.(C) No. 11301/2023. He states that through the boom barrier has been installed at point 'B'; however, in deference to the orders of the High Court passed on 25.08.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 11301/2023, the boom barrier has not been made operational.
2. Learned counsels for the parties' state that the disputed area is marked as point 'B' to 'C' (a straight line) in the site plan annexed at page no. 138 of this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that this boundary wall at points 'B' to 'C' was unauthorizedly broken down by the Respondent; however, a chain has been put by both, the Petitioner and the Respondent in the said (broken down) area and neither party is using it for ingress or egress.
3.1. He also states that MCD in its affidavit dated 15.01.2020 placed before this Court, has taken a stand that the boundary wall marked at point 'B' to 'C' has been broken down by Respondent No.1 without the permission of MCD/DDA; and directed Respondent No.1 to re-construct the same. In view of these subsequent facts, he prays that the parties be directed to maintain status quo at the site as it exists today as there is an apprehension of breach.
4. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent states that the opening at points 'B' to 'C' (a straight line) as seen in the site plan is duly reflected in the site plan approved by DDA as obtained by the Respondent under RTI and placed on record under cover of the index dated 11.11.2023. She states that the Respondent No.1 therefore do not accept the directions of MCD for re-construction of a boundary wall. She further states that no chain has been put by the Respondent No.1 at these points; she however, admits that the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/12/2023 at 04:26:44 Petitioner has put chains on the said points 'B' to 'C'. She states that the boom barrier though installed by Petitioner, is not operational.
5. This Court has considered the submission of the parties. It is apparent from the record that in the interregnum there have been material developments i.e., (i) the permission granted to the Petitioner herein by MCD for reinstalling the gate/boom barrier at point 'B' shown in the site plan and its implementation; (ii) direction issued by MCD to Respondent No.1 to re-construct the boundary wall at points B to C (a straight line); (iii) the existence of a chain at points B to C (a straight line); and (iv) either party not using this opening at points B to C (a straight line) for ingress and egress presently.
6. The learned counsel for the Respondent was unwilling to make a statement that Respondent No.1 will not change the status quo pending the hearing of this petition.
7. In the aforesaid facts, in view of the unwillingness of the Respondent No.1 to hold its hands, the parties are directed to maintain 'status quo' at the site as it exists today. This Court is of the opinion that the said direction is necessary to ensure that there is no breach of law and order.
8. The order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No. 11301/2023 has been placed before this Court. A perusal of the said order shows that there may be overlapping issues arising for consideration in both these petitions. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be appropriate if both the petitions are heard by the same bench to avoid conflict of orders. The said writ petition is listed on 19.03.2024.
9. Accordingly, the registry is directed that this petition i.e., CM(M) No. This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/12/2023 at 04:26:45 833/2019 be listed along with W.P.(C) No. 11301/2023 before the same bench after obtaining orders from Hon'ble the acting Chief Justice-.
10. List on 19.03.2024.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J DECEMBER 7, 2023/rhc /aa This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/12/2023 at 04:26:45