Full Text
Translation output
A-18
% 29.09.2011
Present: Mr.M.M. Kashyap, Advocate,for the petitioner.
Ms. Biji Rajesh, Advocate for respondents No. 1 & 2.
Mr. Varun Goswamt Advocate for respondents No.3 to
5.
+CONT. CAS (C) No. 381/2011
*
Counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that in terms of the directions of a single Bench of this Court dated
01.02.201 L the petitioner is being disturbed from squatting and selling his wares from outside Shop No. S-19, Green Park Market_
New Delhi. Learned counsel for the MCD has put in appearance; learned counsel for the MCD states that they are not coming in the way of the petitioner in any manner; this factual position is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that some private respondents are interfering with his squatting at the said site and inspite of complaints made to the police, the SHO is not interfering. Admittedly the private parties were not arrayed as parties in the writ petition in which the order dated 01.02.2011 had been passed; the Police was also not a party; directions have been given to the MCD alone. The petitioner has no grievance against the MCD.
Learned counsel for the private respondents states that the petitioner was not squatting at this site where he is now so squatting. This cannot be gone into as this Court is only dealing
2011:DHC:9791 with contempt jurisdiction.
The local SHO will however ensure that the directions contained in the order dated 01.02.2011 are complied with in true letter and spirit.
Petition disposed of in the above terms.
SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 a
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
£
2011:DHC:9791
% 29.09.2011
Present: Mr.M.M. Kashyap, Advocate,for the petitioner.
Ms. Biji Rajesh, Advocate for respondents No. 1 & 2.
Mr. Varun Goswamt Advocate for respondents No.3 to
5.
+CONT. CAS (C) No. 381/2011
*
Counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that in terms of the directions of a single Bench of this Court dated
01.02.201 L the petitioner is being disturbed from squatting and selling his wares from outside Shop No. S-19, Green Park Market_
New Delhi. Learned counsel for the MCD has put in appearance; learned counsel for the MCD states that they are not coming in the way of the petitioner in any manner; this factual position is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that some private respondents are interfering with his squatting at the said site and inspite of complaints made to the police, the SHO is not interfering. Admittedly the private parties were not arrayed as parties in the writ petition in which the order dated 01.02.2011 had been passed; the Police was also not a party; directions have been given to the MCD alone. The petitioner has no grievance against the MCD.
Learned counsel for the private respondents states that the petitioner was not squatting at this site where he is now so squatting. This cannot be gone into as this Court is only dealing
2011:DHC:9791 with contempt jurisdiction.
The local SHO will however ensure that the directions contained in the order dated 01.02.2011 are complied with in true letter and spirit.
Petition disposed of in the above terms.
SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 a
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
£
2011:DHC:9791
JUDGMENT