South Delhi Citizens Forum And ... vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Others
1995 Latest Caselaw 494 Del

ORDER

Mahinder Narain, J.

 1. C.     M.
4005/ 95. 
 

 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM. 4004/95. 
 

2. A public interest writ petition was decided by an order of the Division Bench of his Court comprising B. N. Kirpal and Arun Madan, JJ., on 29 October, 1993.

3. That writ petition was numbered as C.W.P. 1924 of 1993 and has been filed by South Delhi Citizens Forum, inter alia, stating that despite acquisition of land measuring 316.9 acres in Kilokari, Khizrabad and Okhla, which was very valuable land, large scale encroachments have taken place which were not being removed by the D.D. A.

or by the police.

4. By the order dated 29 October, 1993, the writ petition was disposed of and direction was given to remove the encroachment in accordance with law.

5. The applicant has now filed an application for intervention in the said decided writ petition asserting that he filed earlier a writ petition, and that his writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court (R.C. Lahoti and A. K. Srivastava, JJ.) with certain observations. The applicant relies upon the observations of the Division Bench that clarification can be obtained from the Bench which decided the case.

6. The Division Bench which decided the original public interest petition is not sitting any more, as Justice B. N. Kirpal is now the Chief Justice of Gujarat, and Justice Arun Madan has been transferred to Rajasthan High Court. As such, this application has been placed before us.

7. We are not satisfied that in a decided writ petition, which was a public interest petition, a person who could have made representation therein, and heard in that petition, and chosen not to do so, is entitled to (be) heard by us, especially in petition in which complaint was made that encroachments have taken place on the land vested in the Government.

8. We are not inclined to entertain this application for intervention. The same is dismissed. CM. 4003/95.

9. In view of the order passed in C.M. 4004/95, this application for stay of demolition is also dismissed.

10. Order accordingly.