Suniti Madan vs New Delhi Muncipal Council
2011 Latest Caselaw 413 Del

1.
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      LPA 648/2010

       SUNITI MADAN                                        ..... Appellant
                               Through Ms. Nandita Rao, Advocate.

                      versus

       NEW DELHI MUNCIPAL COUNCIL            ..... Respondent
                   Through Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                   ORDER

% 24.01.2011

The present appeal is directed against the order dated 20th

August, 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition

(Civil) No. 9985/2009. When this appeal was listed on 17th September,

2010, the following order was passed:-

" Heard Ms. Nandita Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Asutosh Lohia, learned counsel for the respondent.

As conceded to by the learned counsel for the parties, let this appeal be sent for mediation to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

The parties shall appear before the Secretary, Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 29th September, 2010 at 2:00 p.m.

As we are sending the matter for the mediation on consent, status quo existing as of today shall remain in force till the report is received from the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

List the matter on 19th November, 2010."

2. We have been apprised that an interim settlement has been

arrived at before the learned Mediator. Paragraph 6 of the said

settlement reads as follows:-

"6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the parties hereto:

a) Vide LPA No. 648/2010, the Appellant had inter alia, prayed for the regularization of the front staircase constructed by her in Shop No. 32, Khan Market or removal of the electric junction boxes which were obstructing the access to the rear staircase.

b) The Appellant, in accordance with the advice received, attempted to move a formal application with the Respondent for getting the necessary action done on the part of the Respondent in terms of the prayers made in the LPA.

c) The Respondent was unable to accept a fresh application in terms of the above from the Appellant on account of the matter being subjudice in the High Court and conveyed that they would be able to do so only on the directions of the Hon'ble Court.

d) As an interim settlement the Appellant will be approaching the Division Bench for

directions on the Respondent to receive the application from the Appellant without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the matter and consider the same as per rules and if permissible under the BBL regularize the front staircase constructed by the Appellant.

e) The Respondent will have no objection to the Appellant moving an application before the Hon'ble Court seeking directions as above."

3. Ms. Nandita Rao, learned counsel for the appellant has

submitted that the further proceedings before the Mediator is

unnecessary if this Court would direct the respondents to consider the

case of the petitioner for regularization of upfront staircase in the front

side of the shop No. 32 or for removal of electricity junction boxes.

Learned counsel for the respondent has fairly stated that he has no

objection for considering the alternative prayers.

4. Recording such concession the appeal stands disposed of. The

order of the learned single Judge stands modified to that extent. There

shall be no order as to costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

JANUARY 24, 2011 VKR