Delhi Development Authority vs Vikramjit Kapoor
2010 Latest Caselaw 4104 Del

Citation : 2010 Latest Caselaw 4104 Del
Judgement Date : 6 September, 2010

Delhi High Court

Delhi Development Authority vs Vikramjit Kapoor on 6 September, 2010

Author: Manmohan

                                                                                    #28
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       LPA 1735/2006

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                ..... Appellant
                    Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
             versus

VIKRAMJIT KAPOOR                                        ..... Respondent
                                 Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Senior
                                          Advocate with Mr. Rajinder
                                         Aggarwal and Mr. Tanuj Khurana,
                                          Advocates.

%                                     Date of Decision : 06th September, 2010


CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether the 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 in the Digest? No.



                                 JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J

CM Nos. 10749 & 10751/2006 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, applications stand disposed of.

CM 10750 & 10752/2006

For the reasons stated in the applications, delay in filing and

refiling the appeal is condoned.

Accordingly, applications stand disposed of.

LPA 1735/2006 & CM 10748/2006

1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the

judgment and order dated 17th January, 2006 passed in W.P.(C)

2004/1997 whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed the

appellant's demand towards misuse charges raised upon the respondent

for allegedly running a guest house. By virtue of the said order, a

mandamus was also issued to appellant-DDA to consider and process

the conversion application filed by the respondent in accordance with

law.

2. On 10th March, 2008, learned counsel for appellant-DDA had

stated before this Court that two other Letters Patent Appeals being

LPA No.1576/2005 titled Union of India vs. Sh. Manvinder Singh Vedi

and LPA No.2642/2005 titled Union of India vs. Anu Mehra involving

similar issues were pending consideration in this Court. Since on the

said date of hearing the learned counsel for appellant-DDA had also

pointed out that the aforesaid two LPAs had been adjourned sine die in

view of pendency of Special Leave Petition No. 6624/2005 wherein

also the issue relating to levy of misuse charges on running of guest

house was pending before the Supreme Court, the present case was

adjourned sine die with liberty to learned counsel for the parties to get it

revived once the Special Leave Petition was disposed of.

3. Admittedly, on 18th February, 2010, the aforesaid Special Leave

Petition No.6624/2005 was dismissed. However, the Apex Court left

the question of law open for decision in some other case. Subsequent to

the Supreme Court's order, LPA No.1576/2005 and LPA 2642/2005

were also dismissed by this Court in terms of the Division Bench

judgment in Union of India vs. Vinay Kumar Agarwal (LPA

696/2004), which led to the filing of Special Leave Petition

No.6624/2005. Order dated 22nd April, 2010 of the Division Bench

dismissing LPA No. 1576/2005 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 4 th February, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7642/2001. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order indicates that the learned Single Judge followed the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vinay Kumar Agarwal (LPA No.696/2004 decided on 7th January, 2005). On 7th March, 2006, it was stated by learned counsel for the Appellant that a similar matter is pending before the Supreme Court and therefore the present LPA was adjourned sine die and the impugned judgment and order was stayed.

The Registry has now informed us that in fact an Special Leave Petition was filed against the judgment of the Division Bench being Civil Appeal No.1364/2006 (Union of India vs. Vinay Kumar Agarwal). That Civil Appeal was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 18th February, 2010 on which date the following order was passed:

We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgments of the High Court. We however, leave the question of law that has been raised by the ASG, open for decision in some other case. With this observation the appeal is dismissed.

Since the decision of this Court in LPA no.696/2004 decided on 7th January, 2005 has not been interfered with, this appeal is dismissed in terms of that decision."

4. The matter was thereafter repeatedly adjourned for the learned

counsel for the appellant-DDA to take instruction as to whether due to

change in policy, anything survived in the present appeal.

5. Today, Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, learned counsel for appellant-

DDA submitted that she had received instructions to contest the matter

on merits. When it was pointed out to Ms. Chandra that on her own

statement the controversy in the present appeal was similar to LPA

No.1576/2005 and LPA 2642/2005 which have now been dismissed,

Ms. Chandra submitted that in view of the Supreme Court leaving the

question of law open in SLP No.6624/2005, we should reconsider the

issue.

6. However, we are of the view that we are bound by the Division