Full Text
Translation output
$-20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35,36
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) No. 12044/2018 RAKESH Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Mr. Pankaj Singh & Mr. Priyanshu Malik, Advs.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) No. 12044/2018 RAKESH Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Mr. Pankaj Singh & Mr. Priyanshu Malik, Advs.
VERSUS
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Adv. for SDMC.
Mr. Ajjay Aroraa & Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advs. for MCD.
W.P.(C)No.l2052/2018 RAJA RAM Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Adv. for SDMC.
Mr. Ajjay Aroraa & Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advs. for MCD.
W.P.(C)No.l2052/2018 RAJA RAM Petitioner
VERSUS
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. for SDMC.
W.P.(C)No.l2053/2018 BHANWAR SINGH CHAUHAN Petitioner
Through; Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Mr. Pankaj
W.P.(C)No.l2053/2018 BHANWAR SINGH CHAUHAN Petitioner
Through; Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Mr. Pankaj
VERSUS
SOUTH DELHI MUT^ICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR
Through: Mr. Ajjay Aroraa & Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advs. for MCD with PS Singh, Sr.
Panel Counsel with Mr. Rajpal Singh, Adv. for Rl.
W.P.(C) No. 12055/2018 SATPAL SHARMA Petitioner
2019:DHC:7815 "V /
Through: Mr. Ajjay Aroraa & Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advs. for MCD with PS Singh, Sr.
Panel Counsel with Mr. Rajpal Singh, Adv. for Rl.
W.P.(C) No. 12055/2018 SATPAL SHARMA Petitioner
2019:DHC:7815 "V /
VERSUS
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.
Through: Ms. Piija Kalra, Adv. for SDMC.
Mr. AjjayAroraa & Mr. Kapil Dutta, W.P.(C)No.l2051/2018
MAHTAB SIDDKI Petitioner
Through: Ms. Piija Kalra, Adv. for SDMC.
Mr. AjjayAroraa & Mr. Kapil Dutta, W.P.(C)No.l2051/2018
MAHTAB SIDDKI Petitioner
VERSUS
W.P.(C) No. 12054/2018 NAGENDRA SINGH Petitioner
Singh& Mr. Priyanshu Malik, Advs.
Singh& Mr. Priyanshu Malik, Advs.
VERSUS
Through: Mr. VikrantN Goyal & Ms. Satvika Goyal, Advs. for SDMC.
W.P.(C)No.l2065/2018 DEEPAK CHAUHAN Petitioner
W.P.(C)No.l2065/2018 DEEPAK CHAUHAN Petitioner
VERSUS
Through: Mr. Sriharsha Peechara, SC with Ms. Vidhi Jain, Adv.
W.P.(C) No. 12066/2018 RAM NIWAS Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Mr. Panlcaj Singh &Mr. Priyanshu MaUk, Advs.
W.P.(C) No. 12066/2018 RAM NIWAS Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Mr. Panlcaj Singh &Mr. Priyanshu MaUk, Advs.
VERSUS
Through: Mr. Ajjay Aroraa &Mr. Kapil Dutta, W.P.(C)No.l2076/2018
MEENAKSHI Petitioner Singh &Mr. Priyanshu Malik, Advs.
MEENAKSHI Petitioner Singh &Mr. Priyanshu Malik, Advs.
VERSUS
Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, ASC for SDMC.
Mr. AjjayAroraa& Mr. Kapil Dutta, W.P.(C)No.l2085/2018
NAVEEN KUMAR Petitioner
Mr. AjjayAroraa& Mr. Kapil Dutta, W.P.(C)No.l2085/2018
NAVEEN KUMAR Petitioner
VERSUS
Through: Mr. AjjayAroraa& Mr. Kapil Dutta, W.P.(C)No.l2071/2018
MANISH KUMAR GUPTA Petitioner
Through; Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Mr. Pankaj
MANISH KUMAR GUPTA Petitioner
Through; Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Mr. Pankaj
VERSUS
Through: Ms. Aastha Jain & Ms. Rohini Gupta, Advs. for SDMC.
W.P.(C) No.12074/2018 SUSHILA Petitioner
W.P.(C) No.12074/2018 SUSHILA Petitioner
VERSUS
W.P.(C) No.12075/2018 CHANDER PRAKASH BHASIN Petitioner
VERSUS
W.P.(C) No. 12248/2018 OM PARKASH TANWAR Petitioner
Singh& Mr. Priyanshu Malik, Advs.
Singh& Mr. Priyanshu Malik, Advs.
VERSUS
W.R(C) No. 12257/2018 MANORMA Petitioner
VERSUS
]1^
W.P.(C) 12262/2018
PARVEEN TANWAR Petitioner Singh &Mr. Priyanshu Malik, Advs.
PARVEEN TANWAR Petitioner Singh &Mr. Priyanshu Malik, Advs.
VERSUS
Through: Mr. Rishi Vohra &Ms. Kanika Singh, Advs. for SDMC.
Mr. AjjayAroraa& Mr. Kapil Dutta, W.P.(C) 12305/2018
SHIV KUMAR Petitioner
Mr. AjjayAroraa& Mr. Kapil Dutta, W.P.(C) 12305/2018
SHIV KUMAR Petitioner
VERSUS
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
22.01.2019 Notice was issued in some of these cases on 12.11.2018. It is the admitted position as between the parties that action was initiated against the properties that are the subject matter ofthese petitions atthe instance ofthe
Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) NO. 4677/1985 t\l\Qd MC Mehta vs. Union ofIndia & Ors.
Mr. Ajjay Aroraa, learned Standing Counsel for SDMC and Mr. Amit Singh, learned counsel appearing for R2/Monitoring Committee have drawn my attention to certain orders made by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) NO. 4677/1985. The relevant portion of order dated 15.12.2017 is extracted below;
"57. We make it clear that henceforth it will not be necessaryfor any person whose residential premises have been sealed for misuse for any commercial (other than industrial) purposes at the instance ofthe Monitoring Committee tofile an appeal before the appropriate statutory Appellate Tribunal. Instead, that person can directly approach the Monitoring Committee for relief after depositing an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the
Monitoring Committee which will keep an account of the amounts received by it. Any person who has already filed an appeal before the appropriate statutory Appellate Tribunal but would prefer approaching the Monitoring Committee may withdraw the appeal and approach the Monitoring Committee for reliefon the above terms and conditions and on deposit ofRs.
1,00,000/- as costs with the Monitoring Committee, provided that the premises were sealed at the instance of the Monitoring
Committee. Any challenge to the decision of the Monitorins
Committee will lie to this Court only. We are constrained and compelled to make this order given the history of the case and the more than serious observations of this Court of an apparent nexus between some entities and the observations regarding corruption and nepotism. " (Emphasis supplied)
In its report No. 128 dated 05.09.2018 rendered by the Monitoring
Committee, it was stated as follows:
•'CHANNEL OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR REDRESSAL
BY THE AGGRIEVED/DEFAULTING PUBLIC ON SEALING MA TTERS:
The Monitoring Committee would like to submit that despite clear ordersfrom the Hon'ble Court with respect to the chain of communicationfor appeal against the sealing actions to be only addressed to this Hon'ble Court, it has been seen that in a number of cases, the parties concerned have approached other
VJ
Courts i.e. High Court, District Court and surprisingly in one case, Consumer Court with the sole purpose of delaying the process of sealing ordered under the orders of the Hon'ble
Court. The Monitoring Committee has come to the conclusion that all these dubious deviations in redressal appeals are primarily to gain time and delay the process. Some examples of this unfair practice are highlighted in the succeeding paragraphs."
Whereupon the Supreme Courtmade order dated05.09.2018 in which it was stated as follows:
"Channel of communications for redressal by the
Assrieved/Defaultins Public on sealing matters
It is stated that some of the defaulting individuals/organizations are approaching the Courts - whether it is the Hish Court or the District Court and even in one case the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
It is submitted by the Monitoring Committee that these
Courts and the Commission do not have any jurisdiction over these issues in view ofthe orderpassed by this Court.
The learned Amicus will bring it to the notice ofthe Courts and the Commission that prima facie jurisdiction does not lie with them leaving it for the Courts to take a decision in the matter. " (Emphasis supplied)
It is also pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that by a recent order dated 27.11.2018, the Supreme Court has further observed as under:
Petitions being entertained ^ other Courts/Tnbunals/Authorities
The Monitoring Committee has brought to our notice that other Courts/Tribunals/Authorities including the State
Consumer Commission and District and Sessions Judge are
- V entertaining the petitions despite orderpassed by this Court.
We have requested Mr. A.D.N. Rao to look into these cases. We reiterate that no Court or Tribunal or any other
Authority shall look into these matters as well as the petitions which are pending before us.
(Emphasis Supphed)
From a perusal of the foregoing, it is evident that since action in respect of properties that are subject matter of the present petitions was initiated at the instance of the Monitoring Committee appointed by the
Supreme Court, this court is mandated not to entertain any petition in relation to such action; since the remedy for the petitioners lies before the
Monitoring Committee and/or before the Supreme Court.
In view of the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court, the present petitions cannotbe entertained by this court and the same are dismissed.
JANUARY 22, 2019/m/ N \J ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
22.01.2019 Notice was issued in some of these cases on 12.11.2018. It is the admitted position as between the parties that action was initiated against the properties that are the subject matter ofthese petitions atthe instance ofthe
Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) NO. 4677/1985 t\l\Qd MC Mehta vs. Union ofIndia & Ors.
Mr. Ajjay Aroraa, learned Standing Counsel for SDMC and Mr. Amit Singh, learned counsel appearing for R2/Monitoring Committee have drawn my attention to certain orders made by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) NO. 4677/1985. The relevant portion of order dated 15.12.2017 is extracted below;
"57. We make it clear that henceforth it will not be necessaryfor any person whose residential premises have been sealed for misuse for any commercial (other than industrial) purposes at the instance ofthe Monitoring Committee tofile an appeal before the appropriate statutory Appellate Tribunal. Instead, that person can directly approach the Monitoring Committee for relief after depositing an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the
Monitoring Committee which will keep an account of the amounts received by it. Any person who has already filed an appeal before the appropriate statutory Appellate Tribunal but would prefer approaching the Monitoring Committee may withdraw the appeal and approach the Monitoring Committee for reliefon the above terms and conditions and on deposit ofRs.
1,00,000/- as costs with the Monitoring Committee, provided that the premises were sealed at the instance of the Monitoring
Committee. Any challenge to the decision of the Monitorins
Committee will lie to this Court only. We are constrained and compelled to make this order given the history of the case and the more than serious observations of this Court of an apparent nexus between some entities and the observations regarding corruption and nepotism. " (Emphasis supplied)
In its report No. 128 dated 05.09.2018 rendered by the Monitoring
Committee, it was stated as follows:
•'CHANNEL OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR REDRESSAL
BY THE AGGRIEVED/DEFAULTING PUBLIC ON SEALING MA TTERS:
The Monitoring Committee would like to submit that despite clear ordersfrom the Hon'ble Court with respect to the chain of communicationfor appeal against the sealing actions to be only addressed to this Hon'ble Court, it has been seen that in a number of cases, the parties concerned have approached other
VJ
Courts i.e. High Court, District Court and surprisingly in one case, Consumer Court with the sole purpose of delaying the process of sealing ordered under the orders of the Hon'ble
Court. The Monitoring Committee has come to the conclusion that all these dubious deviations in redressal appeals are primarily to gain time and delay the process. Some examples of this unfair practice are highlighted in the succeeding paragraphs."
Whereupon the Supreme Courtmade order dated05.09.2018 in which it was stated as follows:
"Channel of communications for redressal by the
Assrieved/Defaultins Public on sealing matters
It is stated that some of the defaulting individuals/organizations are approaching the Courts - whether it is the Hish Court or the District Court and even in one case the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
It is submitted by the Monitoring Committee that these
Courts and the Commission do not have any jurisdiction over these issues in view ofthe orderpassed by this Court.
The learned Amicus will bring it to the notice ofthe Courts and the Commission that prima facie jurisdiction does not lie with them leaving it for the Courts to take a decision in the matter. " (Emphasis supplied)
It is also pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that by a recent order dated 27.11.2018, the Supreme Court has further observed as under:
Petitions being entertained ^ other Courts/Tnbunals/Authorities
The Monitoring Committee has brought to our notice that other Courts/Tribunals/Authorities including the State
Consumer Commission and District and Sessions Judge are
- V entertaining the petitions despite orderpassed by this Court.
We have requested Mr. A.D.N. Rao to look into these cases. We reiterate that no Court or Tribunal or any other
Authority shall look into these matters as well as the petitions which are pending before us.
(Emphasis Supphed)
From a perusal of the foregoing, it is evident that since action in respect of properties that are subject matter of the present petitions was initiated at the instance of the Monitoring Committee appointed by the
Supreme Court, this court is mandated not to entertain any petition in relation to such action; since the remedy for the petitioners lies before the
Monitoring Committee and/or before the Supreme Court.
In view of the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court, the present petitions cannotbe entertained by this court and the same are dismissed.
JANUARY 22, 2019/m/ N \J ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
JUDGMENT