Full Text
W.P.(C) 3064/2018 & CM Nos. 33492/2018
DELHI ANUSUCHIT JATI VIKAS SANGTHAN Petitioner
Through: Mr Vikas Bapurao Pakhiddey, Advocate.
Through: Mr Parvinder Chauhan, Standing Counsel for DUSIB with Mr Nitin
Jain, Advocate for DUSIB.
Mr Gautam Narayan, ASC for GNCTD with Ms Shivani Vij, Mr
Manish Dua and Mr Nishit, Advocates for GNCTD.
X AND
/ W.P.(C) 10421/2016 DELHI ANUSUCHIT JATI VIKAS SANGTHAN Petitioner
Through: Mr Vikas Bapurao Pakhiddey, Advocate.
Through: Mr Parvinder Chauhan, Standing Counsel for DUSIB with Mr Nitin
Jain, Advocate for DUSIB.
25.10.2018
ORDER
1. The petitioner is a society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860 and was handed over the management of a choupal pursuant to the Memorandum ofUnderstanding entered into on 04.04.2012. This was in terms ofthe scheme captioned as "improvement ofSC Basties", floated by the respondent. The petitioner has filed the present petitions seeking additional facilities and further also seeking increase in the charges for booking ofthe said c/zowpaZ/community centre.
2. By an Office Order dated 15.01.2018 issued by respondent no.l (GNCTD), it has been directed that the management ofall assets created and land belonging to Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) shall be managed by DUSIB on its own. In this view, the petitioner has to yield the management of the said choupal in favour of DUSIB. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that ifthe said Office Order stands, the petitioner would have no locus to agitate the grievances as articulated in the present petitions.
3. It is also relevant to mention that the petitioner had challenged the said Office Order dated 15.01.2018 by way of a writ petition (W.P.(C) 11414/2018). However, that challenge was not accepted and the said writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 23.10.2018. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioners intend to challenge the aforesaid order beforethe Division Benchof this Court.
4. In view ofthe above, the present petitions are dismissed. However, it is clarified that ifthe petitioner prevails in its challenge, ifany, to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 11414/2018, the petitioner would also be at liberty to revive the presentpetitions.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 25, 2018 MK