* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 12.09.2011
+ CM (M) No. 1056/2011 & CM Nos.16964-65/2011
VIKAS GAUR ...........Petitioner
Through: Mr. A. Maitri, Advocate.
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..........Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Arora, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 01.09.2011; this is an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal of the MCD (ATMCD). Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon 179 (2011) DLT 168 SC Amrik Singh Vs. Union of India & Others to support his submission that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an CM (M) No. 1056/2011 Page 1 of 4 order passed by the ATMCD as Section 347 (D) of the DMC Act was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. There is no dispute to this proposition.
2 On advance notice, learned counsel for the respondent has put in appearance. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the impugned order in no manner suffers from any illegality.
3 Record shows that the present appeal had been filed by the petitioner/appellant before the ATMCD under Section 347 (B) & (C) of the DMC Act. He claimed himself to be the co-owner of property bearing No. 46, Basant Gaon; this has been specifically stated in his appeal. A sealing order had been passed by the MCD qua this property; the Court had noted that in the reply filed to the show cause notice it was specifically stated by the petitioner that the property in question i.e. property No. 46 does not belong to him i.e. to the petitioner Vikas Gaur and he has no concern with it; contention being that his property is property No. 45, Basant Gaon. There is no dispute to this fact which has been recorded in the order of the ATMCD. The impugned order has also noted that since there was a confusion whether the petitioner was the owner of property No. 45 or property No. 46 and since the sealing order CM (M) No. 1056/2011 Page 2 of 4 has been passed in respect of property No. 46, a surveyor had been appointed; the survey report dated 08.10.2010 is on record; this report shows that both the properties i.e. properties No. 45 & 46 are two distinct properties and there is gali of about 4 feet in between two properties. The impugned order had noted that since the petitioner has himself admitted in the reply to the show cause notice that he has no concern with this property i.e. property No. 46, Basant Gaon (which is the subject matter of the sealing order), this appeal is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that a writ petition seeking a same prayer i.e. assailing the sealing order dated 08.09.2010 had been preferred by the petitioner; he was petitioner No. 6 in the said writ petition and the said writ petition had been filed by him along with his duly attested affidavit; this writ petition is W.P.(C) No.6506/2011. The prayer in this writ petition had challenged this sealing order. It is also not in dispute and it is in fact admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this writ petition which was pending before a Bench of this Court has since been withdrawn on 06.09.2011. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution had been filed on 09.09.2011; relevant would it be to state that there is not a single averment or whisper about the fact CM (M) No. 1056/2011 Page 3 of 4 of pendency or withdrawal of the said writ petition in which the very same sealing order was the subject matter of dispute and which writ petition has since been withdrawn unconditionally. This has been brought to the notice only by learned counsel for the respondent.
4 This petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of concealment alone. No discretion can be exercised in favour of such an indeserving litigant. It is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
5 A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General who shall ensure compliance.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 a CM (M) No. 1056/2011 Page 4 of 4