O. P. Khullar & Ors vs Mcd & Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 5785 Del

              *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of decision: 20th December, 2010.

+                   W.P.(C) 5929/2010 & CM No.20124/2010 (for directions).

O. P. KHULLAR & ORS                                             ..... Petitioners
                   Through:                    Mr. Girish Aggarwal & Ms.
                                               Mugdha Pandey, Advocates.

                                      versus
MCD & ORS                                                       ..... Respondents
                                Through:       Ms. Saroj    Bidawat, Advocate
                                               for MCD.
                                               Mr. Manoj Ahuja, Advocate for R-
                                               2&3 along with Mr. K.L. Grover,
                                               President & Mr. A.K. Puri,
                                               Secretary of BERWA
                                               Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate
                                               for GNCTD with SI V.S. Deol,
                                               PS Shakarpur, Delhi.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                      No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?               No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported              No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioners, being the residents of the colony of Bank Enclave near Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 110 092 have filed the present petition seeking mandamus against the respondent no.1 MCD to remove the gates illegally installed near houses No.108, 87 & 43 in the said colony. The counsel for the petitioner in this regard relies on Vasant Kunj Residents Welfare Association v. Lt. Governor of Delhi AIR 2001 Delhi 271, Kailash Chander v. MCD 1975 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 12, Ram Lal v.

Dharam Vir 93(2001) DLT 702, V.N. Sethi v. State 97 (2002) DLT 831, Revolution (Forum for Awareness) v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi State 2002 VI AD (Delhi) 719, Sundari H. Navani v. MCD 135 (2006) DLT 124 & The Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Hira Lal Tota Ram AIR 1972 Delhi 29.

2. Notice of the petition was issued. The respondent no.1 MCD has filed an affidavit stating that it has no objection in removing of the gates. The counsel for the respondent no.3 RWA however on instructions from the office bearers states that the respondent no.3 RWA is willing to keep the gates open between 5.00 am (in the morning) to 11.00 pm (in the night).

3. The aforesaid proposal of the respondent no.3 RWA is acceptable to the counsel for the petitioners who states that if the gates are so kept open, the petitioners would not insist upon removal thereof.

4. Binding the respondent no.3 RWA whose President i.e. Mr. K.L. Grover, & Secretary i.e. Mr. A.K. Puri are present in Court, the petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent no.3 RWA to keep the aforesaid three gates open from 5.00 am (in the morning) to 11.00 pm (in the night). SHO, Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi (though not a party to this petition) is directed to ensure compliance of the order especially on the complaint of any of the petitioners or other residents.

5. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Dasti under the signatures of court master.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 20th December, 2010 pp..