Geeta Gupta vs Manoj @Raju & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 1723 Del

                * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Date of Reserve: 9th February, 2010
                                                    Date of Order: 26th March, 2010

CONT. CAS (C) No. 754/2006 & CM No. 7142-43/07
%                                                                      26.03.2010


        Geeta Gupta                                             ... Petitioner
                                 Through: Mr. N.K.Gupta, Advocate

                Versus


        Manoj @ Raju & Ors.                      ... Respondents
                         Through: Mr. Ajay Verma


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

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11 & 12 of the

Contempt of Courts Act for initiating contempt action against the respondents

for disobeying order dated 31st August, 2005 passed in WP(C) No.

14161/2005. This Court had following directions:

In the meanwhile, MCD would ensure that no authorized construction is carried on in premises bearing No.56812/4B, Pyare Lal Road, Dev Nagar, New Delhi. Respondents no.5 & 6 are restrained from effecting any construction in the said property without obtaining prior sanction from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

2. The petitioner alleged that the respondents and MCD had no

respect for the Court and in total disregard, disrespect and in violation of

Order dated 31st August, 2005 and subsequent order dated 16th September,

2005, construction was completed in entirety and no action was taken by

MCD. In reply/counter-affidavit, filed by the MCD with a latest compliance

report MCD placed on record photographs showing that the construction

made by respondents was demolished by MCD. The photographs show that

the substantial part of the roof of second floor, front walls of the first and

second floors and chajjas of ground floor were demolished by MCD. It was

submitted by Counsel for MCD that any demolition of side walls would have

resulted into damage to the adjoining properties.

3. I have seen the photographs of the property in question. It

would be seen that the property is sandwiched between two constructed

properties. One photograph shows the property constructed right upto

second floor with a mumty, the other photographs show that the mumties over

the first floor and second floor have been completely damaged and the same

cannot be used. I consider that MCD has done sufficient compliance of the

order passed by the Court. Though it seems the construction was made by

respondents in defiance of the order but by demolition of the same, they have

been made to know that a construction in defiance of the order cannot be

allowed to be stand. I think no further action in this petition was necessary.

The petition is dismissed.

March 26, 2010                           SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn