Delhi High Court
Aurobindo Place Association vs Dda And Ors on 19 May, 2011
Author: G. S. Sistani
21.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 718/2011
% Judgment Delivered on: 19.05.2011
AUROBINDO PLACE ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Naveen Chawala and Mr. Madhok
Chaturvedi, Advs.
versus
DDA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv. for respondent no.1 DDA.
Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Adv. for respondent no.2.
Mr. Gautam Gupta, Adv. for respondent no.3.
Mr. Ashish Tanwar, Adv. for Mr. Sanajay Poddar,
Adv. for respondent no.4 MCD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties writ petition is set
down for final hearing and disposal.
2. Necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of the present writ
petition are that petitioner is an association of shop owners having
shops at Aurobindo Place Market Complex, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
The association is stated to be registered under the Societies
Registration Act with the object of advancing and protecting the
interest of shop owners in Aurobindo Place Market Complex. The
association is aggrieved by the permission granted by respondent
no.1 DDA for installing a lift in the office Unit No.208, 2nd floor,
Aurobindo Place, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while replying on the policy
framed by the DDA, a copy of which has been placed on record,
submits that before installing a lift permission, as per the said
policy is required from the DDA, MCD, Fire Department and
Electrical Regulatory Authority regarding electric load requirement.
Counsel further submits that necessary permissions were not
obtained by respondent no.1.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent DDA submits that there is no
illegality on the part of the DDA neither the petitioner has brought
out or disclosed as to how by granting permission the petitioner
has been prejudiced in any manner. It has also been clarified that
permission has been granted after levying all costs of the space,
which is required for the purposes of installation of the lift and the
right over the land continues to vest with the DDA and, thus,
installation of lift does not amount to encroachment on the public
land as the land will continue to vest with the DDA.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has placed on record various
documents to show that permission was obtained in accordance
with law and after following due process of law. Counsel for
respondent no.2 has drawn the attention of the Court to the
communication dated 1.12.2004, addressed to the Deputy Director,
(CL), DDA and the no objection granted by the association of the
shop owners of Aurobindo Place, Hauz Khas whereby the market
associated had recommended the installation of a Hydraulic
Levitator alongside the outside wall of the office premises at 208,
Aurobindo Place, Hauz Khas. Attention of the court has also been
drawn by counsel for respondent no.2 to the letter dated 4.8.2005
addressed by the Commercial Estate Branch, DDA, to respondent
no.2, by which, respondent no.2 was informed that their request
has been approved by the Screening Committee, subject to
charging the land cost (required for installation) at the current
market price rate. It has been pointed out that by a subsequent
letter the DDA informed respondent no.2 to deposit `5.94 lakhs as
the current cost of the land, which was deposited by respondent
no.2 and informed DDA on 25.8.2009. Supporting payment challan
has also been placed on record. It is, thus, contended by learned
counsel for respondent on.2 that the permission were not granted
overnight and it is after the DDA had completely satisfied itself
about the viability of installing a lift the permission was granted
after following the due process of law. Counsel for respondent no.2
has also drawn the attention of the Court to the communication
dated 22.12.2009 addressed by BSES, by which, BSES confirmed
that they visited the site on 18.1.2009 and 83.69 KW load was
verified at the premises against the sanctioned load of 100 KW and,
thus, they had 16.31 KW load to install lift or any other equipment.
6. It is, thus, contended by counsel for respondent no.2 that all the
necessary permissions have been granted and, thus, the present
writ petition cannot be entertained.
7. I have heard counsel for the parties and also carefully perused the
pleadings and the annexures filed along with the pleadings.
8. Notice in this matter was issued on 4.2.2011. This court had also
granted interim relief on the last date of hearing and further work
of erection of hydraulic levitator/lift in respect of office No.208 at
2nd Floor in LSC, Aurobindo Place Market Complex, Haus Khas, New
Delhi, was stopped. A status report has been filed by the
respondent MCD wherein it has been stated that since the DDA has
already granted permission for installation of hydraulic lift no
separate permission is required by the MCD for the same purpose.
9. In the counter affidavit, which has been filed by the DDA, it has
been stated that respondent no.2 has been granted permission for
installation of hydraulic levitator/lift at Shop No.201, 2nd Floor in
LSC, Aurobindo Place, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. Further it has been
stated in the counter affidavit that permission has been granted as
per the policy circulated vide no.ACA-II/HUPW/DDA 77 dated
27.6.2008, which provides for a lift in community centers
developed by DDA and residential flats built by DDA. As per the
counter affidavit, this permission has been granted after
respondent no.2 has completed the requisite conditions laid down
by the policy and on payment of the space required for the lift at
the current market rate. In the counter affidavit, it has been
categorically denied that there has been any illegality on the part
of respondent DDA in any manner while granting the permission to
the respondent no.2.
10. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that permission has been
granted to respondent no.2 for installing a lift without the DDA
complying with the terms of its own policy. Various documents,
which have been placed on record show that respondent no.2 has
complied with all the necessary terms and conditions and satisfied
the DDA and consequent thereto the permission has been granted
by the DDA as per the policy circulated vide no.ACA-II/HUPW/DDA
77 dated 27.6.2008. Various documents, which have been referred
hereinabove show that respondent no.2 has paid costs of additional
land amounting to `5.94 lakhs. The MCD has categorically stated
that once the permission has been granted by the DDA no
permission is required by them. Communication dated 1.12.2004
shows that the association has itself given its no objection as far
back as in the year 2008 and it is only consequent to this
permission that the work has commenced at the site, in question.
In view of above, I find no ground to entertain the present petition
and the same is accordingly dismissed.
CM NO.1514/2011.
11. Application stands dismissed in view of the order passed in the
petition.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
MAY 19, 2011
'msr'
