Birma Devi v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation
$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4059/2018, CM No. 15985/2018 BIRMA DEVI ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr. Vijay Kasana, Adv. with Ms.
Rashmi Verma, Adv.
versus EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through:
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Adv. with Ms.
Arpita Kumari, Adv. for EDMC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
O R D E R
% 24.04.2018 CM No. 15985/2018 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4059/2018 1.
The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may kindly be pleased to:- (a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ/Order/Direction thereby directing the respondent to deseal the Shop of the petitioner bearing no. 747, Gali no. 13, Harijan Basti, Mandoli Extension, Delhi.
(b) Pass any other Order which this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case may also be passed in favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondents."
2.
It is the case of the petitioner that she had let out one hall on the ground floor of the property on rent to one Gulshan Saluja. On March 30, 2016, the tenanted premises was sealed on the ground that the same was being used as godown/warehouse.
3.
The learned counsel for the petitioner states, the petitioner has no dispute with the tenant as of date. It is his submission that the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondent consider the present writ petition, which includes para (vi) wherein the petitioner has stated that he will abide by all the guidelines and norms issued by the respondent and pass a reasoned order.
4.
The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be reasonable. Accordingly, it is directed that the writ petition and the documents filed by the petitioner be considered by the respondent and a speaking order be passed within a period of three weeks. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, liberty is with the petitioner to agitate the same in accordance with law before appropriate forum. Dasti.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J APRIL 24, 2018/ak