B A Tata v. Govt Of NCT Of Delhi And ORS

$~14 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 7773/2017 B A TATA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Shailesh Madiyal and Ms M.

Prabhakar, Advocates.

versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through:

Mr Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC (Civil), GNCTD for R-1, 2 & 4.

Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA/R3.

Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 06.09.2017 CM No. 32069/2017 1.

Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The application stands dispose of.

W.P.(C) 7773/2017 3.

The petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia, praying as under:- "a) issue a Writ or order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No. 2 Director of Education to consider Representation of the Petitioner dated 20.04.2017 (Annexure P-13) in accordance with law

and pass appropriate orders in the same; and/or, b) issue a Writ or order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.3 Delhi Development Authority to consider Representation of the Petitioner dated 18.05.2017 (Annexure P-14) in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in the same; and/or, c) issue a Writ or order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.4 Registrar of Societies to consider Representation of the Petitioner dated 18.01.2017 (Annexure P-10) in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in the same."

4.

It is the petitioner's case that Sivananda Vidya Bhavan Society, respondent no.5 (hereafter 'the society'), has been illegally taken over by respondent nos 6 and 7. The petitioner has also alleged that all the founding members of the said society have been changed and the school is been run illegally on the land allotted by DDA. The petitioner alleges that takeover of the society is only for the purpose of misappropriating of the land allotted by DDA to the society. It is also claimed that the school is being run illegally and without complying with the rules and regulations. It is asserted that although complaints have been made to respondent nos.2 and 3, no action has been taken pursuant thereto.

5.

This Court is not inclined to entertain the controversy regarding the allegations made by the petitioner. However, since the petitioner has already made representations before respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, they (that is, respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4) are directed to consider the same and if warranted, take such action as required in accordance with law.

6.

The said respondents shall also communicate their decision in that regard to the petitioner. No further orders are required to be passed in this petition.

7.

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J SEPTEMBER 06, 2017 RK