Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Building deviation in Sh. Vinod Kumar Singhal vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 16 May, 2014Matching Fragments
Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A) The applicant was working as JE Buildings in Building department of Karol Bagh Zone of Municipal Corporation of Delhi from 29.02.2003 to 11.03.2004. He received a chargesheet with the following allegations:
1. He failed to take effective steps to stop/demolish the deviations against sanctioned building plan at basement Floor, GF, FF, SF and projection on Mpl. Land in property No.C-103, New Rajinder Nagar at its initial/ongoing stage.
2. He also failed to book the aforesaid deviations timely for taking action u/s 343/344 of DMC Act.
5. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that it was incorrect to say that there was no application of mind by the respondents for passing the orders. With the counter reply respondents have filed a copy of the detailed order passed by the Commissioner, MCD which was conveyed through a brief order dated 01.02.2010. The appellate authority also had passed a detailed order dated 07.06.2011, a copy of which is annexed by the applicant with the OA. He further submitted that in the disciplinary matters scope for interference by the Tribunal is limited and in this case applicant has not alleged any malafide or procedural irregularity or violation of the law of natural justice. It was submitted that during the enquiry it had been proved that the demolition action taken by the applicant on 09-10.01.2004 was limited to FF as stated by Sh. Sunil Chawla, JE. It is significant to note that the applicant remained posted in that jurisdiction till 05.04.2004 and the deviation against sanctioned plan in the shape of excess coverage at Basement, GF, FF and SF and projection on Municipal land was booked on 06.04.2004 (page 26 of the paper book). As the documents filed by the applicant himself would show that all actions by the authorities of giving show cause notice, sealing the property etc. followed subsequently. The applicant, therefore, cannot escape from the responsibility of not taking timely action to prevent such large scale deviation from his building plan.
Upon inspection of premises No.C-103, New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi, it was noticed that deviation against sanctioned building plan in the shape of excess coverage at Basement floor, Ground floor, First floor, Second floor and projection on Municipal land, as booked vide file No.B/UC/KBZ/2004/126 dt. 06.04.2004, has been commenced or has been completed by and at the instance of the Owner/Builder/occupier. (page 26 of the paper book)
10. If the statement of the applicant is taken at his face value, it would mean that the deviations to the extent of 100% in the basement, GF, FF and SF and projection on Municipal land was constructed between 11.03.2004 and the date of inspection (date not given) which must be on or before 06.04.2004. Even if that date was 06.04.2004, the aforesaid huge deviations could arise within 25 days. Though the lay out of that building is not on record, there can be a reasonable doubt as to how the entire construction leading to the aforesaid deviations could be done within 25 days going by the normal methods followed for construction of buildings. With regard to the assertion by the applicant that no complaint was received about any deviation between 11.03.2004 and 05.04.2004 the following observation of the appellate authority in the order dated 12.05.2011 communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 07.06.2011 are relevant: