Delhi High Court
Santosh Sapra vs Manoj Kumar Verma on 24 February, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 9th February, 2010
Date of Order: 24th February, 2010
CONT. CAS. (C) No. 726/2008
% 24.02.2010
Santosh Sapra ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rohan Thawani, Advocate
Versus
Manoj Kumar Verma ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal,
Standing Counsel for MCD
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
This petition for contempt has been filed by the petitioner alleging
gross violation of directions of this Court dated 11th August, 2008.
2. In WP(C) No. 7892/2007, this Court considered Writ Petition filed by
the petitioner regarding structural safety of the unauthorized part of some
construction which was done in Plot No. F-18, Rajouri Garden, Delhi sought to be
regularized and gave following directions:
"It is made clear that while compounding the construction the
MCD will carry out inspection of the entire property and satisfy
themselves about the structural stability of the entire property and
only thereafter regularization shall be done. This exercise shall be
carried out within a period of six weeks from today."
3. It is apparent that this Court had directed MCD to do following acts:
1. To carry out inspection of entire property,
2. To satisfy themselves about structural stability of the entire property, and
3. To consider regularization only after ensuring itself about the structural
safety.
This exercise was to be carried within six weeks.
4. Mr. B.B.Bajaj, Execute Engineer (Bldg.)-I, West Zone, who was
responsible for executing this order filed following status report:
3. That the owner of front half of the property has already submitted a
Structural Safety Certificate along with Regularization Plan from Structural
Engineer mentioning that modified structure is safe. The copy of the
same is already on record.
4. That the additions and alterations made by the owner of the front half
portion cannot have any adverse effect on the structural stability of the
rear half portion, the property being vertically subdivided and the dividing
wall between the front half and back half of the property being
undisturbed."
5. It is apparent from the status report that MCD had not complied with
the order before regularization of the structure. The photographs filed by the
petitioner show that the walls were raised even on slanting sun shades and
projections in the building. It is under these circumstances that MCD was asked to
inspect the building and ensure about the structural safety of the portion sought to be
regularized. Structural safety means that MCD was to find out the load bearing
capacity of these sunshades and if the sunshades were able to carry the load of the
walls erected on them and the goods likely to put on the place and pressure on the
sunshades. Instead of carrying out inspection, MCD called a report from the owner
of the building himself, who submitted a Structural Safety Report and the MCD
washed off of its hands of inspection and doing anything else. It is a clear non
compliance and violation of order of the Court.
6. I consider that Mr. B.B.Bajaj, Executive Engineer (Bldg.)-I, West Zone,
Delhi is liable for contempt of Court. His action not only shows his contemptuous
attitude to the Court but also scant concern for the safety of the lives of the people. If
the structures, fragile in nature, are erected on sunshades, which are not meant for
bearing load and are not even inspected and regularization is done, it is a clear
violation of the order of the Court.
I, therefore hold Mr. B.B.Bajaj guilty of the contempt of Court. He is
sentenced to seven days civil imprisonment. He be taken into custody to undergo
the punishment. His warrants of arrest be issued.
The petition stands disposed of.
February 24, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
