Full Text
Translation output
M2 " ■ ■. -V' ^
* IN THE HIGH COURT OIf DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ . W.P,(C)375/2018,CM Nos.1575/2018,1576/2018 /
JASWINDER SINGH AND ORS.
,;; - , Petitioner
Through: Ms.Anusuya Salwan,Adv.with
V Mr.Vikas Sood,Mr.Sumit Rana, .
Mr.Natansh Kr.Pal,Adv.and petitioner Nos.2and 4in person
■
* IN THE HIGH COURT OIf DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ . W.P,(C)375/2018,CM Nos.1575/2018,1576/2018 /
JASWINDER SINGH AND ORS.
,;; - , Petitioner
Through: Ms.Anusuya Salwan,Adv.with
V Mr.Vikas Sood,Mr.Sumit Rana, .
Mr.Natansh Kr.Pal,Adv.and petitioner Nos.2and 4in person
■
VERSUS
,v, ^ ■
DELHIDEYELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.
^ . ..... Respbhdent
Through: OMr.Arun Birbal,:Adv;with Mr.$anjay
Singh,Adv.for the DDA
: Mr.Ajay Arora,Adv.for North-
/p.M.,C.
A CORAM: ..
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
% 15.01.2018 V
This matter has been listed before this Coiirt in terms of the
Supplementary List,on a mentioning made before Hon'ble the Acting Chief
Justice., CM No.1576/2018 TexemptionY , Exemption allpwed,subjectto alljustexceptions. / -
Application stands disposed of., •
2018:DHC:8795
W.P.fC\375/2018
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may bepleased to: a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
Notice dated 02.01.2018. , b. Issue a writ in the nature ofmandamus restraining the
Respondentsfrom demolishing the property bearing NO. 13A/27, WEA,KardlBagh,New Delhi. c. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
Respondents to de-sealtheshops ofthepetitioners
Any other order or reliefas this Hon'ble Court deemsfit andpropermay bepassed in thefacts and circumstances ofthepresentcase."
It is a matter ofrecord that the Supreme Court, while considering the lA Nos. 93010 and 93007of2017in W.P.(C)4677/1985 M.C Mehta Vs.
«/«/O/'s., has in para 37 held as under:
"37. We make itclear thathenceforth itwillnotbe necessaryforanyperson whose residentialpremises have been sealedfor misusefor any commercial
(other than industrial) purposes at the instance of the Monitoring
' Committee to file an appeal before the appropriate statutory Appellate
Tribunal. Instead, that person can directly approach the Monitoring
Committeefor reliefafter depositing an amount ofRs. 1,00,0007- with the
Monitoring Committee which will keep an account ofthe amounts received by it. Any person who has alreadyfiled an appeal before the appropriate
DELHIDEYELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.
^ . ..... Respbhdent
Through: OMr.Arun Birbal,:Adv;with Mr.$anjay
Singh,Adv.for the DDA
: Mr.Ajay Arora,Adv.for North-
/p.M.,C.
A CORAM: ..
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
% 15.01.2018 V
This matter has been listed before this Coiirt in terms of the
Supplementary List,on a mentioning made before Hon'ble the Acting Chief
Justice., CM No.1576/2018 TexemptionY , Exemption allpwed,subjectto alljustexceptions. / -
Application stands disposed of., •
2018:DHC:8795
W.P.fC\375/2018
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may bepleased to: a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
Notice dated 02.01.2018. , b. Issue a writ in the nature ofmandamus restraining the
Respondentsfrom demolishing the property bearing NO. 13A/27, WEA,KardlBagh,New Delhi. c. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
Respondents to de-sealtheshops ofthepetitioners
Any other order or reliefas this Hon'ble Court deemsfit andpropermay bepassed in thefacts and circumstances ofthepresentcase."
It is a matter ofrecord that the Supreme Court, while considering the lA Nos. 93010 and 93007of2017in W.P.(C)4677/1985 M.C Mehta Vs.
«/«/O/'s., has in para 37 held as under:
"37. We make itclear thathenceforth itwillnotbe necessaryforanyperson whose residentialpremises have been sealedfor misusefor any commercial
(other than industrial) purposes at the instance of the Monitoring
' Committee to file an appeal before the appropriate statutory Appellate
Tribunal. Instead, that person can directly approach the Monitoring
Committeefor reliefafter depositing an amount ofRs. 1,00,0007- with the
Monitoring Committee which will keep an account ofthe amounts received by it. Any person who has alreadyfiled an appeal before the appropriate
.statutoiy Appellate Tribunal but wpuld-prefer approaM. Cdmmittee may withdraw Jhe appea.l and approach the Monitoring
' Cdmmitteefor reliefon the above terms and conditions and on deposit of
Rs:1,00,obO/--as costs with the Mohitdring Committee, provided that the' premises were sealed at the instance ofthe Mdnitoring Corhmittee: Any
' challenge to the decision dfthe Monitoring Committee will lie to this Court > only. We are constrainedaridcompelledto make this ordergiven the history
. ; ofthe case and-the more than seridus observations df this Court ofan i; ' apparent nexus between, some entities 'and the observations regarding
- corruption and nepotism".'
' , The direptions ofthe Su|)reme,Court are very clear. Any challengefb the decision of the, Monitoring Comrnittee lies before the Supreme Court.
- There is ho disjpute that the order dated January 2,2018,o!"the Mbnitbring
; Conmiittee directs the ceilihg ofthe property. It had directed the,DDA to
-initiate,action to demolish and to rptfieve the said public land. In view of the clear directions ofthe Monitoring Cpmmittee appointed by the Supreme
Court,the remedy for the petitibners is to approach the Supreme Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has'referred,to an brder dated.
January 14,2018 passed in W.P.(C)374/2QI8 to contend that a Co-ordinate
; Bench ofthis Court had stayed the demolition bfthe residential part ofthe property in question.i.e. 13A/27, WEA, Karbl Bagh, New Delhi-110005;
She also submits that she is seeking stay of deniolition tilfsuchtirhe, a
. decision is takenbythe Monitoring Committee^ ■ " , s
/
' Cdmmitteefor reliefon the above terms and conditions and on deposit of
Rs:1,00,obO/--as costs with the Mohitdring Committee, provided that the' premises were sealed at the instance ofthe Mdnitoring Corhmittee: Any
' challenge to the decision dfthe Monitoring Committee will lie to this Court > only. We are constrainedaridcompelledto make this ordergiven the history
. ; ofthe case and-the more than seridus observations df this Court ofan i; ' apparent nexus between, some entities 'and the observations regarding
- corruption and nepotism".'
' , The direptions ofthe Su|)reme,Court are very clear. Any challengefb the decision of the, Monitoring Comrnittee lies before the Supreme Court.
- There is ho disjpute that the order dated January 2,2018,o!"the Mbnitbring
; Conmiittee directs the ceilihg ofthe property. It had directed the,DDA to
-initiate,action to demolish and to rptfieve the said public land. In view of the clear directions ofthe Monitoring Cpmmittee appointed by the Supreme
Court,the remedy for the petitibners is to approach the Supreme Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has'referred,to an brder dated.
January 14,2018 passed in W.P.(C)374/2QI8 to contend that a Co-ordinate
; Bench ofthis Court had stayed the demolition bfthe residential part ofthe property in question.i.e. 13A/27, WEA, Karbl Bagh, New Delhi-110005;
She also submits that she is seeking stay of deniolition tilfsuchtirhe, a
. decision is takenbythe Monitoring Committee^ ■ " , s
/
Suffice to state, in view of clear directions ofthe Supreme Court in para 37 ofthe order dated December 15,2017 as referred above,I am ofthe view that the present petition before this Court is not maintainable. The petition is dismissed.
CM No;1575/2018(stav^
Dismissed as infructuous.
M
3^
V.KAMESWAR RAO,J
JANUARY 15,lamakb
CM No;1575/2018(stav^
Dismissed as infructuous.
M
3^
V.KAMESWAR RAO,J
JANUARY 15,lamakb
JUDGMENT