Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs M/S. B&G Caf?? Pvt. Ltd.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2414 Del

*          HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI


+          LPA No. 260 of 2003


                                 Judgment reserved on: April 20, 2010

%                                Judgment delivered on: May 05, 2010


     Municipal Corporation of Delhi
     Through its Commissioner
     Town Hall
     Chandni Chowk
     Delhi.                                          ...Appellant

                      Through: Ms.Maninder Acharya with
                               Ms.Apurna Kothari & Ms.Mansi
                               Gupta, Advs.

                      Versus

     M/s. B&G Café Pvt. Ltd.
     A-574, Lado Sarai
     New Delhi-110030.                               ...Respondent

Through: Mr. N.S. Vasisht, Adv.

Coram:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Not necessary

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Not necessary

MADAN B. LOKUR, ACJ

The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 4 th February,

2003 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W. No. 5783/2000.

2. At the outset it may be stated that the learned Single Judge

proceeded on the basis that the issue raised in the writ petition is fully

covered by his judgment and order in M/s. Holistic Farms Pvt. Ltd. v.

MCD and others, 2003 (1) AD (Del) 491. That judgment was

subsequently appealed against by the Municipal Corporation in LPA

No. 268/2003. We have today allowed the appeal of the Municipal

Corporation and have held that the building bye-laws as on the date of

consideration/sanction of the building plans is crucial. We have rejected

the view that the date of submission of the application for sanctioning

the building plans is relevant.

3. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the Respondent had

applied for the sanction of its building plan on 1st May, 2000.

Thereafter, on 15th May, 2000 the Respondent was informed that there

are certain deficiencies in the application. By the time the deficiencies

were removed, the building bye-laws underwent a change on 7th June,

2000. The effect of this has been discussed by us in LPA No. 268/2003.

4. In view of the change in the building bye-laws, the

application filed by the Respondent was rejected on 12 th July, 2000.

This rejection was challenged by the Respondent by filing a writ

petition, which was allowed by the impugned order.

5. We find from the material on record that the building plans

were rejected because they did not conform to the building bye-laws as

on the date of consideration and also because some of the deficiencies

pointed out on 15th May, 2000 were not removed.

6. We have held in Holistic Farms that if the application for

sanction of building plans is not in accordance with the building bye-

laws, it is liable to be rejected. In this appeal, since the application for

sanction was not in accordance with the building bye-laws, it was

rightly rejected by the Municipal Corporation.

7. Following our decision in LPA No. 268/2003, this appeal is

allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 4 th February, 2003 in

CWP No. 5783/2000 is set aside. No costs.

                                       (MADAN B. LOKUR)
                                       ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE



MAY 05, 2010                           (MUKTA GUPTA)
kapil                                  JUDGE

Certified that the corrected copy
of the judgment has been
transmitted to the main Server.