JUDGMENT Gita Mittal, J.
C.M.13849/2007 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
WPC(C) 7282/2004 and CM 13848/2007
1. Issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued.
2. Ms.Smita Shankar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2.
3. The petitioner in the present case is aggrieved by notice to show cause dated 19th September, 2007 issued under Sections 343 and 344(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (`DMC Act' in short) and Anr. notice to show cause dated 27th September, 2007 issued to the respondent no.3 under Section 345(A) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 whereby the respondents have threatened to seal the property no.201, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi.
4. The petitioner has contended that they, under the lease from the respondent no.3, are occupying the property since 2002. The lease in favor of the petitioner stands extended by an instrument dated 10th March, 2006. It has been contended that no notice to show cause has been issued to the petitioner at any point of time. The impugned notices issued by the respondents are vague and stereotyped notices alleging deviation against the sanctioned building plan without giving any details thereof and threatening the sealing of the property.
5. The petitioner has submitted that the landlord of the premises as well as respondent no.3 has submitted a representation dated 24th September, 2007 and that the petitioner has also responded to the same by the letter dated 1st October, 2007. This representation has not been considered till date by the MCD. The writ petition has been necessitated inasmuch as without giving any heed to the contentions of the landlord or the petitioner, the respondent has now issued notice to show cause dated 27th September, 2007 under Section 345(A) of the DMC Act, 1957 threatening the sealing of the property.
6. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contends that the notice in a printed format is stereotyped and wrongly alleges that unauthorised construction/deviation work is going on in the premises. It is also stated by the petitioner that the petitioner has not encroached on any public land and is not misusing the property. The further submission is that so far as vague allegations of illegal construction are concerned, the respondent no.3 has made submissions in this behalf. The request of the petitioner is that without consideration of the representation made by the respondent no.3 and the petitioner, the respondent nos.1 and 2 ought not to be permitted to effectuate the threats contained in the notice dated 27th September, 2007.
7. In view of the facts notice hereinabove, it would appear that it is the admitted stand of the MCD that it is still considering the matter under Sections 343 and 344 of the DMC Act, 1957 and is yet to take a final view in the matter. No material has been placed before this Court which would support that the petitioner is undertaking any unauthorised or illegal construction. The petitioner can be granted no relief so far as any encroachment on public land is concerned. Law mandates that the respondent would consider the contentions placed before the respondent nos. 1 and 2 by the respondent no.3 before taking any coercive steps in terms of the notice issued on 27th September, 2007.
8. Ms. Smita Shankar, Advocate on instructions of Mr. R.S. Gupta, Executive Engineer (South Zone), MCD, submits that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are giving hearing to the persons who have made representations pursuant to the notices issued under Sections 343 and 344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and these matters are listed tomorrow i.e. 4th October, 2007.
9. The respondent no.3 appears to have made a representation, copy whereof has been annexed in this writ petition. In these circumstances, it is directed that the respondent nos.1 and 2 shall grant appropriate hearing in accordance with law to the respondent no.3. The petitioner or his authorised representative is permitted to join the proceedings and assist the effective consideration of the matter.
10. The respondent nos.1 and 2 shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law with regard to the notices issued in respect of the subject property. Copy of the order shall be served on the petitioner as well. It is directed that no coercive steps in terms of the order passed shall be taken within a period of 15 days after passing of the order.
11. In case the respondent no.3 or the petitioner are still aggrieved thereby, it shall be open to them to take such steps as are available in accordance with law.
12. Ms. Smita Shankar has taken a strong objection that the petitioner has no locus standi to assail the action of the MCD which is taken in accordance with law and is based on an inspection report submitted by the court commissioner appointed in WP (C) No.4582/2003. The respondents have submitted that the petitioner being merely a tenant is not entitled to any individual notice before MCD proceeds in the matter.
13. It is made clear that nothing herein contained is an expression of opinion on the merits of the objections raised by the learned Counsel for the MCD or on the contentions of the petitioner.
The writ petition and the application are disposed of in the above terms. It is also made clear that this order does not permit any person to raise unauthorised construction or to maintain any encroachment of land.
Copy of this order be given dusty under the signature of the court master of this Court.