Full Text
POORVIVISHWAS NAGAR SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI (REGD.) ..... Petitioner;
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao and Ms. Bhabna Das, Advs.
Through: Ms. Pratima Gupta and Mr. Anshul Garg, Advs. for DERC.
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. for DDA.
Mr. Satyakam and Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advs. for GNCTD.
Mr. Manish Srivastava, Adv. for R-10 Mr. Balendu Shekhar and Mr. Vivek Jaiswal, Advs. for R-12.
Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amit Gupta and Mr. Anant A
Pavgi, Advs. AND 3+ W.P.(C) NO.2391/2010 &CM No.3538/2014 (for modification of order dated 1 February, 2014)
ASSOCIATION OF VISHWAS NAGAR SMALL SCALE MFG.& TRADERS (REGD.) Petitioner
Through; Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amit Gupta and Mr. Anant A
Pavgi, Advs.
2015:DHC:11582 GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam and Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advs. for GNCTD.
17.12.2015,
ORDER
1. W.P.(C) No.6382/2007 was filed by the Welfare Association of the Residents ofthe Colony ofVishwas Nagar seeking mandamus to the various governmental agencies to shut down / seal all impermissible industrial activity being carried on in the said colony.
2. W.P.(C) No.2391/2010 was filed by the Association of Vishwas Nagar Small Scale Manufacturing & Traders (Regd.) impugning the action of the governmental agencies of not declaring Vishwas Nagar as an industrial area and seeking a mandamus directing the governmental agencies to so declare and notify Vishwas Nagar as an industrial area.
3. The senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2391/2010 has today in Court handed over an additional affidavit along with a copy of the letter dated 19^^ October, 2015 of the Commissioner of Industries, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) to the said petitioner conveying the decision dated 30^^ September, 2015 ofthe Minister of Industries, GNCTD to resurvey the area of Vishwas Nagar in terms of the provisions of MPD-2021 for determining, whether the same qualifies as an industrial area.
4. The senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2391/2010 thus contends that these petitions be adjournedtill the report ofthe said survey is filed. W.P.(C) NO.6382/2007& W.P.(C) NO.2391/2010 Page[2] of[4]
5. Per contra, the counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6382/2007 contends that the decision, if any of the GNCTD to conduct a fresh survey / resurvey is not only contemptuous of the order of the Supreme Court and of this Court but is also legally untenable inasmuch as the area / colony has already been surveyed thrice and of which one was under the directions of this Court. It is contended that thus a resurvey at the behest of those wanting the area to be declared as industrial, is malafide.
6. The senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2391/2010 controverts that there was any survey under orders ofthis Court.
7. The counsel for the respondent GNCTD though appearing does not have the decision dated 30"^ September, 2015 supra, from which perhaps the reasons for resurvey could have been gauged. He however has handed over in the Court a copy of the letter dated IS'*^ December, 2015 (wrongly mentioned as 15/15/2015) and states that the same contains the reasons for resurvey. A copy of the same has been furnished to the counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.63 82/2007.
8. I am of the view that no purpose will be served by keeping these petitions pending. These petitions are based on the surveys conducted earlier. Now, when the respondent GNCTD is intending to conduct a fresh survey, either the said decision is to be challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6382/2007 and in the event of said challenge being successful and the industrial use continuing have these petitions revived or if the said decision is not challenged, the area would be governed by the decision taken in pursuance to resurvey and whichsoever party is aggrieved therefrom would be entitled to challenge the same. W.P.(C) NO.6382/2007 & W.P.(C) N0.2391/2010 Page 3 of[4]
9. Though the senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2391/2010 contends that these petitions be kept pending and contends that the decision as of today is in favour of the said petitioner but upon being asked, whether the said petitioner is against a fresh survey, is unable to say so. In my view, as long as the said petitioner wants a fresh survey, unless the said fresh survey is held to be bad, the area would have to be governed by the outcome of the fresh survey and no purpose would be served in keeping these petitions pending.
10. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of, as having become infructuous with liberty to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6382/2007 to apply for revival thereof, in the event of succeeding in the challenge, if any made to the order dated 30^^ September, 2015 and the unauthorised industrial activity continuing.
11. The counsel for the respondent GNCTD is directed to, before 31®^ December, 2015 supply acopy ofthe decision dated 30^^^ September, 2015 to the counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6382/2007.
12. Needless to state that all contentions remain open to all the parties. No costs.
DECEMBER 17,2015 Bs.. W.P.(C) NO.6382/2007& W.P.(C) N0.23W2010 JIV SAHAIENDLAW, J. Page 4 of[4]