Full Text
Date ofdecision:2V'*December,2018
SHACHI MAJAJAN Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajeev RanjanPandey, Adv. versus, ;; \
.DELHIDEVELOPME^ ANDORS. Respondents
Through: Mr.Naveen Kumar Raheja, ASbfpr.R,! , Ms.:JyBii|ra^^;:Adv for GNCTD
Ms.Jti/Pahdeykl^dv.for Ms.NanditaRao, Ms.Dfeho'sl^edvM Adv.for R-6
'f' '
' /■if- '
JUDGMENT
1. After some hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner restricts his relief, in these proceedings, to issuance of a direction, to the Delhi Development Authority and to the East Delhi Municipal Corporation to take a decision on the representation, dated lO^'' November, 2018, annexed as Annexure P-22 to the writ petition. W.P.(C) 12243/2018 Page 1of[2] 2018:DHC:8648
2. I have all my doubts asto whetherthe substantive dispute raised in these proceedings is amenable to adjudication by a writ court. Be that as it may,there can be no gainsaying the fact,ifa citizen makes a representation to a statutory authority, he is entitled to a response thereto. Solely on that ground,and without expressing any opinion on the merits ofthe representation, or even whether the subject matter of the representation, or the reliefs sought for therein, are capable of being decided or granted by the statutory authorities to whom the representation has been made,this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Delhi Development Authority and to the East Delhi Municipal Corporation to respond-to the representation dated 10^^ November,2018,within a period offpiip'Webks.
3. There shall be no order^ as to cbs) ■1.. jV • •; ' ' - -V.. 111' ■:! ? HANKAR. J DECEMBER 21, 2018 bh