Puran Chand And ANR v. Delhi Development Authority And ANR

$~12 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 7788/2016 PURAN CHAND AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Yogesh Tiwari with Mr. Vikrant Singh, Advocates.

versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR .

.... Respondents Through Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Mr. Anant Nigam and Ms. Gauri Chaturvedi, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

O R D E R

% 28.01.2020 CM APPL.625/2020 (for extension of time) 1.

By this application, petitioners seek extension of time granted to the petitioners to vacate the premises by order dated 09.08.2018. 2.

In view of the directions passed by the Supreme Court in certain Special Leave Petitions of similarly situated persons these petitions were disposed of and petitioners were given time to vacate the subject premises by the end of December 2019, subject to filing affidavits of undertakings.

3.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Supreme Court in Baljeet Singh And Anr. vs. Delhi Development Authority Through its Vice Chairman And Anr. (SLP 3349033492/2016) of similarly situated individuals, has extended the time to vacate till 31.03.2020.

4.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the DDA submits that in other Special Leave Petitions, Supreme Court rejected similar applications and when this fact was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in Baljeet Singh & Anr (supra), the Supreme Court specifically directed that the extension was granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that they were unaware of the dismissal of similar applications in the other SLPs. He submits that the Supreme Court further directed that order of extension would not be treated as precedent and relied on in any case. 5.

I am of the view that since this petition was disposed of on an undertaking filed or to be filed by the petitioners that they shall vacate the said premises on or before 31.12.2019, no application for extension of time would lie.

6.

In any event, I am not inclined to extend the time since the petition was disposed of an undertaking by the petitioner. 7.

Application is, accordingly, dismissed.

8.

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J JANUARY 28, 2020/st