Dalip Kumar Dhingra & Ors. vs Mcd
2010 Latest Caselaw 3259 Del

$~
  *        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                            Date of Decision: 14th July, 2010
+     W.P.(C) 4469/2010, CM No.9125/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for placing
      additional facts) & CM No.8879/2010 (u/S 151 CPC for stay)
      DALIP KUMAR DHINGRA & ORS.                                  ..... Petitioners
                            Through:        Mrs. Amita Gupta & Mr. Parveen Kumar,
                                            Advocates

                                       Versus
      MCD                                                        ..... Respondent
                            Through:        Ms. Maninder Acharya & Mr. Vikas Sethi,
                                            Advocates

      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 by this writ petition impugn the notice dated 21st

June, 2010 of the respondent MCD demanding from the petitioners the

ad-hoc conversion charges, one time parking charges, additional FAR

charges with respect to the basement and first floor and above of their

shops situated in Defence Colony Market, New Delhi. It is inter alia the

contention of the petitioners that the first floor of the said shops though

meant initially for residential purposes were converted into commercial

long prior to coming into force of the MPD-2021, in accordance with

which the aforesaid charges are being demanded.

2. It is recorded in the demand letters impugned in this petition that

the same were being issued as per the directions of the Monitoring

Committee appointed by the Supreme Court.

3. The writ petition came up before this Court first on 9 th July, 2010

when attention of the counsel for the petitioners was drawn to the order

dated 11th October, 2007 of the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C)

No.7109/2007 laying down as under:

"There is, in our opinion, considerable merit in the submission made by Mr. Paul. If the sealing of the premises has taken place on account of the direction issued by the Apex Court, any relief by way of de-sealing of the same can also be given by the said Court alone or by an agency nominated by the said Court, which in the instant case happens to be the Monitoring Committee appointed by their lordships. So also whether or not there is any misuse is a matter which the Monitoring Committee has to examine and in case it is found that there is none, it may be in a position to direct the de-sealing or make a report to that effect to the Supreme Court. In either eventuality, intervention by the High Court in the ongoing process of sealing and de-sealing which is being monitored by the Supreme Court is not, in our opinion, indicted. The petitioner has an effective remedy available to him before the Monitoring Committee and even if one were to say that the said remedy is not as efficacious as the writ petition before this Court, judicial discipline demands that we keep off the proceedings which are directly under the supervision of the Supreme Court."

It was thus put to the counsel for the petitioners as to how this petition

before this Court was maintainable. The counsel for the petitioner on that

date sought time to consider.

4. The petitioners have filed CM No.9125/2010 setting out the reasons

as to why inspite of above order of Division Bench, this petition lies. It is

the contention of the petitioners that the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta's

case was concerned with illegal industrial or commercial activity in

residential premises and had appointed the Monitoring Committee for the

said purposes only. It is contended that the Supreme Court was not

concerned with and the Monitoring Committee was not appointed for

cases as the present one. It is further contended that the Division Bench

also in the order (supra) was concerned with commercial use of residential

property and had made the observations (supra) in the aforesaid context.

It is urged that the Monitoring Committee cannot be granted extra

constitutional status and if this Court is of the opinion that the action of

the MCD of demanding the charges from the petitioners is wrong, has

jurisdiction to interfere in the matter.

5. The contentions of the counsel for the petitioners tantamount to the

Monitoring Committee exceeding its brief. The Monitoring Committee

having been appointed by the Supreme Court, in my view the grievance

against the illegal directions, if any, issued by the Monitoring Committee

would lie before the Supreme Court only or by way of representation to

the Monitoring Committee as directed by the Division Bench of this

Court.

6. Moreover, the observations aforesaid of the Division Bench of this

Court are general in nature and if at all it is the contention of the

petitioners that their cases do not fall within the ambit of the said

observations, the remedy of the petitioners for clarification lies before the

Division Bench only and judicial propriety demands that this Court

follows the said directions/guidelines laid down by the Division Bench.

7. Resultantly, the petition is held to be not maintainable and is

dismissed. However, it is clarified that this Court has not expressed any

opinion on the merits of the case of the petitioners and the dismissal of

this petition shall not come in the way of the petitioners agitating their

grievances before the appropriate forum.

No order as to costs.

Dasti.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JULY 14, 2010 gsr