Full Text
Decision delivered on:08.08.2023
RIDGEVIEW CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Pawanjit Singh Bindra, Sr.
Advocate with Mr Nakul Ahuja, Mr Gaurav Malik and Mr Anuj Malhotra, Advocates
Through: Mr Tushar Sannu, Standing Counsel for MCD with Mr Shubham
Bhaduouriya, Advocate.
Mr Kavindra Gill, Advocate for UOI.
Mr Sushil K. Pandey, Advocate/ respondent no. 2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J. (ORAL):
JUDGMENT
1. Consequent upon order dated 02.08.2023, the petitioner has filed the present application. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 MCD who has appeared on advance notice submits that there is no need to file reply to the application. As such, we heard learned counsel for both sides. W.P.(C) 5072/2019
2. As reflected from record and submissions made by both sides, vide order dated 13.05.2019, the predecessor bench of this court directed thus:
3. On 02.08.2023, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 MCD pointed out that the interim relief granted to the petitioner on 13.05.2019 was only conditional relief but the petitioner did not comply with the directions dated 13.05.2019 to deposit 20% of the total demand within eight weeks. In response to our specific query, learned counsel for petitioner also fairly admitted on 02.08.2023 that petitioner had not deposited 20% of the total demand in terms with order dated 13.05.2019. That being so, on 02.08.2023 we clarified that respondent no. 1 MCD would be free to take appropriate action in accordance with law, as the order dated 13.05.2019 was selfoperative.
4. It appears that consequent upon order dated 02.08.2023, the respondent no. 1 MCD sealed and attached basement of the subject commercial property, which led to the application under consideration, seeking a declaration that the attachment order dated 04.08.2023 passed by respondent no. 1 is bad in law and also for a direction to de-seal the basement of the subject commercial property.
5. In the course of the submissions, learned senior counsel for petitioner, on instructions, offered to pay 20% of the impugned demand of Rs.2,81,58,751/- alongwith an interest thereon at a rate of 12% per annum till this day within three (3) weeks if respondent no. 1 MCD carries out desealing of the basement. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 MCD on instructions from authorized officers of the municipality accepted the protem offer.
6. Accordingly, with consent of both sides, the application is disposed of, thereby directing the respondent no. 1 MCD to de-seal the basement of the subject commercial property by 02:00 pm tomorrow (09.08.2023) and further directing the petitioner to deposit with the respondent no. 1 MCD an amount equivalent to 20% of the impugned demand of Rs.2,81,58,751/- with interest thereon at a rate of 12% per annum for the period from 13.05.2019 (the date of interim relief) till this day.
7. Both sides shall file compliance affidavit within six weeks.
8. However, it is clarified that in case the petitioner fails to deposit with respondent no.1 MCD, the abovementioned amount within abovementioned period, the basement of the subject commercial property shall be again sealed by MCD and in that regard, compliance report shall be filed within six weeks. WP(C) 5072/2019
9. List on the date already fixed i.e. 27.02.2024.
(GIRISH KATHPALIA) JUDGE (RAJIV SHAKDHER)
JUDGE AUGUST 8, 2023 Click here to check corrigendum, if any