Full Text
Translation output
«. f- $-52 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 5257/2013
PRIYANKA SAWHNEY Petitioner
Through Mr. Rahul Gupta and Mr. Shekhar Gupta, Advocates
W.P.(C) 5257/2013
PRIYANKA SAWHNEY Petitioner
Through Mr. Rahul Gupta and Mr. Shekhar Gupta, Advocates
VERSUS
THE CHAIRPERSON NDMC Respondent
Through Dr. Kumar Jwala and Mr. Arvind Shah, Advocates
Through Dr. Kumar Jwala and Mr. Arvind Shah, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
23.08.2013 CM No. 11775/2013 (exemption! Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subjectto alljust exceptions.
The application stands disposed off.
W.P.tCl 5257/2013 and CM No. 11774/2013 (stavl
The petitioner, Priyanka Sawhney, claims to be the daughter of late
Shri Satish Kumar Tahim. She contends that sometime in the year 1979, Shop No. 2, Yusuf Zai Market (Municipal Market), Outer Circle, Coimaught Circus, New Delhi, was allotted to her father by the NDMC.
Her father died intheyear 2012 intheUSA leaving behind thepetitioner as his sole heir.
She further states that she gave two representations dated lO'''
December, 2012 and 26^^ March, 2013 seeking transfer ofthe aforesaid shop
2013:DHC:7227 in her name being the sole successor to Late Shri Satish Kumar Tahim. In the representations, she has complained that the ownership of the said premises is also falsely claimed by her cousin Shri Manish Tahim, who is the son ofher father's younger brother Shri Satish Kumar Tahim.
Counsel for the petitioner states that as far as the petitioner knows, the aforesaid representations have remained unattended by the respondent and that the respondent appears to be uninterested in disposing them off. He further states that he petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents were to duly consider and dispose off the aforesaid representations within a time bound manner after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard in the matter.
Issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why Rule nisi be not issued.
Counsel for the respondent accepts notice and submits that the respondent would have no objection to consider and dispose off the said representations in a time bound manner on merits.
Under the circumstances and without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed ofwith a direction to the respondents to consider the aforesaid representations ofthe petitioner and to dispose offthe same with a speaking order after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard. It would be open to the respondent to take all necessary steps towards proper consideration of the aforesaid representations as it considers necessary in law.
It is made clear that the representations shall be disposed ofwithin a period offour months from today. In case the petitioner is still aggrieved of the outcome, it would be open to the petitioner to approach this Court as per law.
The writ petition is disposed offinthe above terms.
AUGUST 23,2013 sd SUDERSHAN KUMARJVflSRA, J.
23.08.2013 CM No. 11775/2013 (exemption! Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subjectto alljust exceptions.
The application stands disposed off.
W.P.tCl 5257/2013 and CM No. 11774/2013 (stavl
The petitioner, Priyanka Sawhney, claims to be the daughter of late
Shri Satish Kumar Tahim. She contends that sometime in the year 1979, Shop No. 2, Yusuf Zai Market (Municipal Market), Outer Circle, Coimaught Circus, New Delhi, was allotted to her father by the NDMC.
Her father died intheyear 2012 intheUSA leaving behind thepetitioner as his sole heir.
She further states that she gave two representations dated lO'''
December, 2012 and 26^^ March, 2013 seeking transfer ofthe aforesaid shop
2013:DHC:7227 in her name being the sole successor to Late Shri Satish Kumar Tahim. In the representations, she has complained that the ownership of the said premises is also falsely claimed by her cousin Shri Manish Tahim, who is the son ofher father's younger brother Shri Satish Kumar Tahim.
Counsel for the petitioner states that as far as the petitioner knows, the aforesaid representations have remained unattended by the respondent and that the respondent appears to be uninterested in disposing them off. He further states that he petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents were to duly consider and dispose off the aforesaid representations within a time bound manner after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard in the matter.
Issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why Rule nisi be not issued.
Counsel for the respondent accepts notice and submits that the respondent would have no objection to consider and dispose off the said representations in a time bound manner on merits.
Under the circumstances and without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed ofwith a direction to the respondents to consider the aforesaid representations ofthe petitioner and to dispose offthe same with a speaking order after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard. It would be open to the respondent to take all necessary steps towards proper consideration of the aforesaid representations as it considers necessary in law.
It is made clear that the representations shall be disposed ofwithin a period offour months from today. In case the petitioner is still aggrieved of the outcome, it would be open to the petitioner to approach this Court as per law.
The writ petition is disposed offinthe above terms.
AUGUST 23,2013 sd SUDERSHAN KUMARJVflSRA, J.
JUDGMENT