← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/9074/2016

Shiv Shakti Hanuman Vidya Mandir Charitable Trust v. Deputy Commissioner Of Police And ORS

2016-10-04Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva2 pages

$~100 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 9074/2016 SHIV SHAKTI HANUMAN VIDYA MANDIR CHARITABLE TRUST ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma with Ms. Parul Sharma, Advocates.

versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS... Respondents Through Mr. Amresh Mathur, Advocate.

Inspector Arvind Kumar with SI Sunil Kumar, PS. Govind Puri.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

O R D E R

% 04.10.2016 The petitioner seeks a direction against the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to celebrate Ramleela, Durgapuja, etc. with effect from 01.10.2016 to 11.10.2016 at Shiv Shakti Hanuman Vidya Mandir Charitable Trust (Registered) at Pocket IV, Kalkaji. It is contended that the petitioner had requested many times to respondent orally as well as in writing to grant permission and had even sent a legal notice dated 10.09.2016. However, permission has not been granted.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that no application was filed by the petitioner. It is contended that as per the Circular issued for the year 2016, the last date for making an application was 31.08.2016. The application was to be in a particular WP(C) 9074/2016

format and was to be supported by an affidavit as also the site plan clearly showing the entry, exit, space for parking, etc. apart from other 'no objection' certificates and electricity safety certificate, fire safety certificate, etc.

It is contended that no such application or supporting documents have been filed with the respondent nor it is contended in the petition that any such application was filed. It is submitted that since there was no application filed, there was no question of grant of any permission.

The petitioner is not able to point out whether any application was ever filed either before 31.08.2016 or even till date. I find no merit in the petition.

The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J OCTOBER 04, 2016 st WP(C) 9074/2016