Irshad Malik v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Delhi High Court · 17 Apr 2025 · 2025:DHC:2768
Manoj Jain
CM(M) 689/2025
2025:DHC:2768
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking early hearing before the MCD Appellate Tribunal, holding that interim relief from the Civil Court precluded the need for supervisory intervention under Article 227.

Full Text
Translation output
CM(M) 689/2025 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 17th April, 2025
CM(M) 689/2025, CM APPL. 22282/2025 & CM APPL. 22283/2025
IRSHAD MALIK .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amreek Singh, Advocate.
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel for
MCD
WITH
Mr. Himanshu Goel and Ms. Varsha, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
(oral)

1. Petitioner has filed an appeal which is pending adjudication before the learned Presiding Officer, Appellate Tribunal, MCD. It has been registered as A.No.56/2025.

2. The grievance in the present petition is to the effect that when on 06.03.2025, the petitioner had prayed for early hearing of his stay application, the learned Tribunal did not grant any early hearing and adjourned the matter for 21.03.2025.

3. It is, however, not made clear if there was any such apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that else the building in question would be demolished, why the present petition was not filed swiftly.

4. Moreover, when asked, it was also informed that the learned Tribunal did take up the matter on 21.03.2025 but the same has now been adjourned for 01.08.2025. Copy of the proceedings, conducted that day, has not been CM(M) 689/2025 2 placed on record.

5. Learned counsel for respondent appears on advance notice and submits that the petitioner herein has already filed a civil suit. It is submitted that such civil suit was, though, not maintainable, fact remains that in such civil suit there is a status quo order and, therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner, as on date, at least, seems completely misfounded.

6. Be that as it may, fact remains that grievance herein is with respect to mere denial of early hearing and since petitioner is already enjoying interim relief, albeit, given by a Civil Court, this Court does not find any compelling reason to invoke its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

8. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.

JUDGE APRIL 17, 2025 st/js