Satish Kumar Mann vs Mcd & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2021 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
23.

+      W.P.(C) 8887/2009



       SATISH KUMAR MANN                   ..... Petitioner
                      Through: Mr. J.S. Mann, Mr. Amir Yadav, Mr. A.S.
                      Mann, Mr. K.K. Prashad, Advocates

                      versus



       MCD & ORS.                                           ..... Respondents
                               Through: Mr. Vikas Sethi, Adv. for R-1/MCD
                               Ms. Jyoti Singh, Adv. for R-2/GNCTD

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL



                      ORDER

% 13.05.2009

The present petition, styled as a Public Interest Litigation, has been filed alleging

that big quantity of drainage/rainwater is collected and stinking in village Naya Bans and

the authorities were not doing anything about the same. Police assistance was also

sought from the SHO of Police Station Narela for restraining the mischievous persons

from blocking the passage. The petitioner, on behalf of the villagers, made an application

to the Deputy Commissioner, MCD, Narela zone intimating about the unauthorized

blockage of the canal by respondent No.7. It is also alleged that Respondent No.6, under

the garb of Abadi Deh Certificate, got the total area of his house mentioned as 816

Sq.Yds. in collusion with the revenue staff though the abadi deh certificate is not meant

to disclose or certify the length of boundaries and demarcation of impugned house. The

petitioner claims that applications were made by him on behalf of the villagers to have

the unauthorized encroachment removed and complete the construction work of the canal. It was also alleged that Sukh Lal Mann (respondent no.7 herein) had encroached

upon the metalled road adjoining his house. Proceedings in different forums and courts

were initiated by the authorities as well as respondents No.6 and 7. A number of these

proceedings are still pending. The petitioner has, inter alia, sought directions including

a writ of mandamus to direct the MCD to take appropriate

WP(C) No.8887/2009 Pg.1 of 2 steps and file proceedings against the orders passed in Suit No. S-170/08/03 as also a

mandamus against the police authorities to initiate criminal proceedings against

respondent No.6 and 7.

Given the nature of disputes raised in the present petition as also the fact that

proceedings are pending in various forums/courts, we do not think that the controversy

raised here in this petition can be the subject matter of a public interest litigation. Public

interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection as

held by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal (2004) 3

SCC 349.

In view of the nature of allegations made in the petition, we do not think this is an

appropriate case for us to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. Needless to say that it is open for the petitioner to pursue his

remedies in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.

In view of what is stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. All pending

applications also stand disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J MAY 13, 2009 Pk