Ritu Dhuria v. Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And ORS.

$~A-4 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 3653/2013 RITU DHURIA ..... Petitioner Through petitioner in person versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS...... Respondent Through Mr.Mukesh Gupta, Adv. Standing Counsel for SDMC Mr.Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr.Sarwan Kumar Shukla, Adv. for UOI/L&DO Mrs.Inderjeet Saroop and Mr.Raghav Saroop, Advs. for R-7,9 and 11 Mr.Satinder Singh Bawa, Adv. for Delhi Police Mr.Ajay Verma, Sr.Atanding counsel DDA with Ms.Komal Sorout, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

O R D E R

% 09.01.2020 This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandmus directing the respondents to remove the entire illegal encroachment/illegal construction on the pavement, road sides, parking places, common areas of the street situated in between the G and I block, Old Double Story, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi for free vehicular movement and common use. Other connected reliefs are also sought. On 25.4.2019 this court noted the submissions of the private respondents that the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court is seized of the matter with regard to encroachment, misusers and unauthorised construction etc. The matter was adjourned at the request of

learned counsel for the petitioner.

On 16.5.2019 the submission of learned counsel for respondents No.7,9 and 12 was noted that in the area in question, namely, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar,New Delhi most of the shops for which objection has been taken have been sealed by the Monitoring Committee and that the Monitoring Committee is considering to take a similar action with regard to other shops situated in the said street. The petitioner had disputed the said position.

On 4.7.2019 learned counsel for the petitioner stated that she will make the Monitoring Committee as party to ascertain the position. Till today nothing has been done. It is manifest that according to the respondents the issue regarding the properties in question is a subject matter pending before the Monitoring Committee. The petitioner has been taking dates only to ascertain the fact.

In view of the various orders of the Supreme Court in the case of M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India it is not for this court to go into this writ petition.

Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Monitoring Committee. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

JAYANT NATH, J JANUARY 09, 2020 n