Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar Gupta & Others vs Chief Fire Officer & Ors. on 23 July, 2008
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM Nos.9452/2008, 10022/2008 in WP(C) 5638-45/2008
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA & OTHERS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.D.K. Rustagi with Mr.Achin
Aren, Advocates.
Versus
CHIEF FIRE OFFICER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Zubeda Begum, Advocate for
R-1 to 3
Mr.Sandeep Aggarwal with Mr.A.
Singh, for DJB/R-5
Mr.B.B. Gupta, Adv. for R-6
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
% ORDER
23.07.2008
1. We have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner as well
as counsel appearing for respondents No.1,5 and 6. This writ petition
was disposed of vide order dated 29th March, 2007. However,
subsequently CM No.5518/2007 was filed by the respondent No.6
seeking correction of typographical error in the said order and also for
modification of condition No.3 stipulated therein. The Structural
Engineer nominated by this Court for supervising the construction of the
underground water tank also filed an application being CM
No.5519/2007 seeking a direction to the Registry to furnish to him
certified copies of the plans and reports submitted by Shri R.S. Jindal,
Architect to enable him to commence the construction of the tank. By
order dated 27th April, 2007, the order of 29th March, 2007 was modified
whereby clause 3 of the said order was substituted by following clause:
"The construction will be completed within one
month from the date the same commences. R-
6 shall furnish to the Registry of this Court a
Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.7.5 lakhs which
shall be encashable at the instance of the
petitioner in case any damage is caused to any
portion of the property in the occupation of the
petitioner or any other occupant other than R-6.
The amount so available upon encashment
shall be used for repair of the damage, if any
caused."
2. Thereafter certain further orders were passed for ensuring
compliance regarding furnishing of the bank guarantee by the
respondent No.6. In the meantime, Shri N.K. Jain, who was appointed as
Supervisor passed away. The respondent No.6, therefore, filed an
application being CM No.12438/2008 and suggested the names of four
other Structural Engineers for nomination to undertake the supervision
work assigned earlier to Shri N.K. Jain. The Division Bench by order
dated 7th April, 2008 has appointed Shri G.P. Thareja, District and
Sessions Judge (Retired) as a Local Commissioner to supervise through
a Structural Engineer the proposed construction. The power of
nominating a suitable Structural Engineer is also delegated to him. It is
also directed that the construction of the underground water tank by the
respondent No.6 shall be subject to the terms and conditions already
stipulated by the orders passed by this Court in these proceedings. The
fee of Shri Thareja if fixed at Rs.50,000/- to be paid equally by the two
parties. The fee of the Structural Engineer to be nominated by Shri
Thareja, after hearing both the sides, is to be fixed by Shri Thareja and
to be paid by the respondent No.6. The parties are given liberty to
make their proposals and suggestions in regard to the construction of
the tank as also the other modalities before Shri Thareja, if so advised.
3. Shri Thareja has submitted report dated 5th July, 2008, whereby
he is seeking the following directions from the Court:
"(a) Sri S.N. Sinha Professor and Acting Head
Department of Civil Engineering may be appointed as
Engineer in-charge to supervise the construction of
underground water tank as per the designs approved
by him along with Sri Masood as suggested by
Professor Sinha or any other engineer of his choice.
(b) The petitioner may be directed to deliver vacant
possession of shops for three months within fifteen
days of intimation to them. Professor Sinha suggests
that the construction would be complete by two
months but on safe side more time of one month would
be appropriate, considering the congested area of
Chandni Chowk where work may be done after working
hours.
(c) Necessary directions be also given to the local
police to assist and not to obstruct the construction of
the water tank if necessary at odd hours.
(d) The petitioners may be directed to deposit the
fee of the local commissioner as already directed since
their cheque given to the local commissioner has been
returned with remarks no sufficient funds.
(e) Considering the time already devoted including
the number of visits at site already done and further to
be made and further time is to be devoted considering
the fear of the petitioners appropriate further fee may
be fixed."
4. It is required to be stated that respondent No.6 has now filed an
application being CM No.9452/2008 requesting the Court to pass
appropriate directions as desired by the Local Commissioner in his
report dated 5th July, 2008. The petitioner has, however, filed CM
No.10022/2008 raising certain apprehensions about the implementation
of report of Shri Jindal and is seeking a direction to the Local
Commissioner to consider CM Nos.10970/2006 and 1868/2007 before
deciding on the implementation of the said report.
5. We do not find any substance in the apprehensions raised by the
petitioner. The reliefs claimed by the petitioner in his CM cannot be
granted. The Local Commissioner has submitted a detailed report. We
are of the view that the directions sought by the Local Commissioner
are liable to be granted. It is ordered accordingly.
6. Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner has
paid the fee of the Local Commissioner.
7. The applications CMs No.9452/2008, 10022/2008 stand disposed
of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
S.MURALIDHAR
JULY 23, 2008 (JUDGE)
"nm"
