Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 15th January, 2025
SH. TARIF SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Mr. V.P. Rana and Ms. Bhawana, Advocates
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel for DDA
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioners seek quashing and setting aside of order dated 26.12.2024 issued by DDA under Sections 30(1) and 31(A) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 in respect of warehouses in question.
2. The grievance coming from the side of petitioners is limited to the effect that pursuant to the show cause notice in question, petitioners had submitted a comprehensive representation supported with documents but these have not even been touched and considered while passing the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for respondent-DDA appears on advance notice and submits that there is equally efficacious remedy available to the petitioners and they can always file statutory appeal against the aforesaid order in terms of DDA Act.
4. This Court has seen the impugned order dated 26.12.2024 and it W.P.(C) 482/2025 2 seems that nothing else has been communicated to the petitioner and, therefore, it may be obviously quite difficult for the petitioners also to file appeal in absence of any reason being provided by the authority concerned while passing the aforesaid order.
5. After hearing arguments from both the sides and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either of the party, the writ petition is allowed while directing the concerned authority i.e. Executive Officer (DA) to consider the matter afresh and to pass a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six weeks from receipt of copy of this order. It will be up to the competent authority to afford any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
6. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to DDA.
8. Needless to say, in view of aforesaid, impugned order does not survive anymore.
JUDGE JANUARY 13, 2025