Sudhir Gupta v. South MCD

Delhi High Court · 23 Jan 2018
V. Kameswar Rao
W.P.(C) 663/2018; W.P.(C) 680/2018
administrative petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court reduced the costs imposed by the Tribunal on the petitioner considering his financial incapacity and held that a writ petition is the appropriate remedy in absence of a final order.

Full Text
Translation output
$-68 & 74 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 663/2018
SHRI SUDHIR GUPTA (DECEASED) THROUGH: LEGAL HEIR
SHRI SIDHARTH GUPTA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Adv.
VERSUS
SOUTH MCD AND ORS. Respondents
Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, Adv. for R1 AND
W.P.(C) 680/2018
SUDHIR GUPTA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Adv.
VERSUS
SOUTH MCD «fe ORS
Through:
Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
23.0L2018 CM No. 2894/2018 in W.P.(C) 663/2018
CM No. 2917/2018 in W.P.fC) 680/2018 Exemptions allowedsubjectto alljust exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 663/2018
W.P.(C) 680/2018
ORDER

1. Present petitions have been filed against the orders dated November 2018:DHC:8800 V 18, 2016 and January 12, 2017 passed in appeals No. 604/2011 and 437/2011 to the extent that Tribunal has imposed a cost of Rs.5,000/- on the petitioner on both the occasions, in both the appeals, the cumulative effect of which is Rs.20,000/-.

2. It is the submission ofthe learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner the only legal heir was already a party before the Tribunal, there was no reason / occasion for a non-existent legal heir of his mother Late Ms. Sushma Gupta to be brought on record. He also states, that petitions are in the nature of mercy petitions as the cumulative cost in both the appeals is for Rs. 20,000/- and the petitioner's position is not such that he could be able to pay the cost.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / SDMC states, remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Administrator against the order of the Tribunal. This submission is contested by learned counselfor the petitionerby statingthat the remedybefore the Administrator is only when a final order is passed by the Tribunal which is not the case here. According to him, writ petitionisthe onlyremedy for the petitioner.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the issue which falls for consideration is the imposition of cost on two occasions in two appeals % by the Tribunal to be deposited with the Registry of the Tribunal. I do not see any illegality inthe order ofthe Tribunal imposing cost, except the fact, the cumulative amount to be deposited is Rs. 20,000/- in two appeals. As it is the case of the petitioner that he is not in a position to pay the said amount, I deem it appropriate to reduce the cost from- Rs.5,000/- to Rs.2,500/- on two occasions in both the appeals. The petitioner shall now deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- (total) with the Registry of the Tribunal s ^within four weeks from today.

5. As this is the only issue, there is no requirement to issue notice to the respondents as they are not concerned with the reliefs sought for in the petitions.

6. The petitions stand disposed of

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

JANUARY 23, 2018