Full Text
* IN THE HSGH'COURT OF DELHI AT iMEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2851/2012 & CM No. 8458/2012
VIJAY THUKRAL AND ANR. .... Petitioners
Through Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Ms. Priyam Mehta & Mr. Abhimanyu
Chopra, Advocates
Through Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Standing
Counsel for MCD.
Mr. A.K. Singla, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Bhaskar Tiwari, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
% 06.03.2013
Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to set aside impugned order No. D/AE/(DB)/AKG/CZ/12/139 dated 09.05.2012 passed by the respondent No. 1 i.e. Commissioner, MCD, whereby petitioners were directed to vacate the premises bearing No.4046-48, Naya Bazar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to, 'the premises').
As per the petition, notice under Section 349 of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957 was issued to the occupier on 09.05.2012 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises. This notice was issued to the occupier. The property in question was declared to be dangerous on account of the following reasons:-
ORDER
3. The bricks of Brick Arch roofing have come out at number of places and from hanging point of Arch." / Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to repair the said portion at his own cost and to the satisfaction of the MCD and within a specified period. Mr.SingIa, learned senior counsel, who appears for the owner of the entire building submits that certain other portions of the building are also in a dangerous condition and he submits that a direction be issued to the MCD to inspect the entire building and give a report. Ms. Srivastava, learned counsel for the MCD submits that MCD has no objection in case the petitioner repairs his portion to the satisfaction of the MCD, and within a specified period. In view of the stand taken by the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with the following agreed terms. Agreed terms between the petitioner No. 1 and the MCD are as under:-
1. The petitioner shall repair the portion in his possession subject matter of notice dated 09.05.2012 within three months from today without causing any damage to the building of the respondent No. 2.
2. During the repair, no additional coverage construction will be carried out.
3. After repairs are carried out, petitioners will inform the MCD to enable the MCD to inspect the property and satisfy themselves W.P.(C) 2851/2012 2/3 > r that the subject property has been duly repaired. It woul^be open for respondent no.2 to make a request to the MCD to inspect the entire property and subnnit a report as to whether the entire property requires any repair or not. The inspection will be carried out within four weeks of the request.
4. The MCD will keep a vigil over the property in question and inspect the same to ensure that the repair work is being carried out to their satisfaction.
5. The indemnity bond filed by the petitioners before this court shall continue to remain in force, till the premises is duly repaired by the petitioners. Accordingly, writ petition and the application are disposed of in above terms. DASTI.