High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/10640/2016

Jagtar Singh v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & ORS

2016-11-09Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Indermeet Kaur2 pages

$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10640/2016 JAGTAR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Rajesh Tandon, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Aditi Sharma, Advocate versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS ..... Respondents Through Ms.Jyoti Taneja, Advocate for DCP/R-2 Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh, Traffic Inspector from Subzi Mandi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

O R D E R

% 09.11.2016 C.M. No.41708/2016 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of.

W.P.(C) 10640/2016 Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that in spite of two representations dated 29.8.2016 and 18.10.2016 pending before the respondent no.1/North Delhi Municipal Corporation and respondent no.2/DCP (Traffic North), the same have not been answered. The case of the petitioner is that vide allotment dated 25.4.2016 he was allotted a parking site namely Bus Parking Mori Gate/Civil

Line Zone; this was on a monthly licence fee. He was also allotted another bus parking at Sukha Ped Mori Gate/Civil Line Zone vide separate allotment letter dated 27.4.2016 which was also on monthly licence basis. Some time in around April, 2016 the petitioner came to know that another parking at Mori Gate, Gole Chakkar was being run by certain individual there which was an illegal and unauthorized parking. The said alleged illegal parking was allowing trucks and buses to be parked with the authority of the law. The petitioner approached the respondent and has time and again brought this to the notice of the respondent but the respondent has not reacted and has not answered the aforenoted two representations which he had filed before the respondent no.1.

The limited prayer in the present petition is that the respondent should answer his representation in accordance with law. There are two representations as noted supra they are dated 29.8.2016 and 18.10.2016. The first representation has been addressed to respondent no.1 and the second representation was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner (Traffic North) i.e. respondent nos.2 and 3. The said representation will be answered by the concerned respondents in accordance with law within an outer limitation of four weeks from today.

Petition disposed of.

Order dasti.

INDERMEET KAUR, J NOVEMBER 09, 2016 ndn