State Education Committee (Regd) v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation And ANR

$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7263/2017, CM Nos. 30097/2017 & 9178/2018 STATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE (REGD) ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. M.P. Sharma, Adv.

versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Ms. Monika Arora, Adv. for NDMC with Mr. Harsh, Adv. for R1 Mr. Saurabh Tiwari, Adv. for R2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

O R D E R

% 07.05.2018 1.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing thereby to the respondent No.1 to demolish the unauthorised construction being carried out in the property bearing No.7830 Nai Basti, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi110006. Any other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."

2.

On an application filed by the respondent No.2, this Court on March 19, 2018 has passed the following order:

"This is an application filed by respondent no.2 with the following prayers:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing thereby to the respondent no.1 to demolish the unauthorized construction being carried out in the property bearing no. 7830 Nai Basti, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi - 110006.

Any other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no.2/applicant that he is entitled to protection under the provisions of the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second (Amendment) Act, 2017 inasmuch as the existence of the property on the land relates back to the year 1989. He draws my attention to Annexure R-3 of the application, which is a document issued by MCD, in support of his submission. He also states, the petitioner has already approached the ATMCD against the demolition order, which is listed tomorrow. He also states in the absence of a Presiding Officer of the ATMCD, the said appeal cannot be heard. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / non-applicant states ex-parte stay has not been given to the respondent No.2/applicant by the ATMCD.

This submission is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondentno.2/applicant by stating that no ex-parte stay was granted. The stay was to be argued before the Tribunal. Having noted the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no.2 / applicant, respondent no.1 is restrained from demolishing the property in question. At the same time, respondent no. 2/applicant shall not carry out any construction till the next date of hearing. Notice, Learned counsel accepts notice for the petitioner / non-applicant. Let notice be issued to respondent no.1 and its counsel returnable on April 17, 2018, the date already fixed.

Copy of the application be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner / non-applicant within 2 days. Dasti.

3.

It is noted from the order dated March 19, 2018 that the respondent No.2 has already approached the ATMCD. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage state that the petitioner shall intervene in the proceedings pending before the ATMCD i.e in the appeal filed by the respondent No.2. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is agreeable to the counsel for the respondents. 4.

In view of the statement made, if an application is filed by the petitioner for intervention before the ATMCD, the same shall be favourably considered only to the extent of making oral and written submissions. I have been informed that the next date of hearing before the ATMCD is May 10, 2018. If that be so, the parties shall appear before the ATMCD on the said date when they will produce this order before the ATMCD for its perusal and consideration. The protection granted in favour of the respondent No.2 vide order dated March 19, 2018 shall continue till May 10, 2018 when the Tribunal shall consider the appeal / stay application de-novo without being influenced by the protection granted by this Court on March 19, 2018.

5.

A copy of the appeal be given to the counsel for the petitioner by tomorrow.

The petition is disposed of.

CM Nos. 30097/2017 & 9178/2018 Dismissed as infructuous.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J MAY 07, 2018/aky