Delhi High Court
Pardarshita Public Welfare ... vs Comissioner Of Mcd And Ors on 11 November, 2011
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5002/2010
Decided on: 11.11.2011
IN THE MATTER OF :
PARDARSHITA PUBLIC WELFARE ASSOCIATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harkrishan Das Nijhawan, General
Secretary of the petitioner/Society in person.
versus
COMISSIONER OF MCD AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel,
MCD with Mr. Rajesh Singh, Advocate
Mr. Anil Grover, Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Garg
and Mr. Rahul Khurana, Advocate for R-5.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner/Society praying inter
alia for directions to the respondent/MCD to initiate action against the
unauthorized construction existing in property bearing No.A-1/19,
Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi, owned by respondent No.5.
2. Notice was issued on the present petition vide order dated
28.07.2010. On the said date, counsel for the respondent/MCD was
directed to produce the sanctioned/regularization plans of the property in
question and to take instructions whether inspection of the property
could be done by the petitioner or any other independent person so as to
verify whether the subject premises had been built in accordance with the
sanctioned plan or not. Vide order dated 14.09.2010, the owner of the
subject premises, who had not been impleaded by the petitioner initially,
was permitted to be impleaded as a co-respondent. On the very same
date, statement of the counsel for the respondent/MCD was recorded to
the effect that the requisite sanctions, obtained by respondent No.5 from
the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) before carrying out
additions/alterations in the subject premises, had also been placed on
record. On 01.03.2011, counsel for the respondent/MCD handed over an
inspection report of the subject premises, on the basis of an inspection
undertaken on 22.07.2010, which revealed that the additional
construction existing on the first, second and third floors of the premises,
had been duly regularized on 11.12.2007 and 20.04.2010 respectively.
The said inspection report also enclosed with it a copy of the letter dated
05.06.2008 issued by the ASI, granting sanction for construction in
respect of the subject premises.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/MCD submits that the
construction existing on the first, second and a part of third floor of the
subject premises has been got compounded as per the applicable
Rules in that regard and the grievance of the petitioner that prior
permissions had not been obtained by respondent No.5 before carrying
out alterations in the subject premises, is belied by the NOCs dated
25.02.2005 and 05.06.2008 issued by ASI to respondent No.5. She
draws the attention of this Court to an order dated 17.08.2010 passed by
the Central Information Commission (CIC) on the second appeal preferred
before it by Mr. Nijhawan, General Secretary of the petitioner/Society in
respect of the subject premises, wherein the allegation of the
appellant/Society that false information had been provided by MCD with
regard to approval of sanction plans of the subject premises, was held to
be invalid. It was also observed that the appellant/Society had made the
allegations of unauthorized construction without any proof and
consequently, the penalty proceedings initiated against the officers of
MCD were dropped.
4. Counsel for the respondent/MCD further draws the attention of this
Court to the order dated 20.10.2010 passed by the Division Bench in a
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) preferred by the petitioner/Society, which
was dismissed while imposing costs of `75,000/-, with the observation
that the said PIL was more an attempt to settle scores in a court of law
and clearly exposed the vindictive attitude of the petitioner/Society. It
is stated that the aforesaid judgment dated 20.10.2010 was taken in
appeal by the petitioner/Society by filing an SLP before the Supreme
Court, but the said appeal has also recently been dismissed vide order
dated 31.10.2011.
5. It is pertinent to note that the present writ petition was filed by the
petitioner/Society within three days of the dismissal order passed by the
CIC on 17.8.2010 and the same appears to be nothing but yet another
attempt to rake up an issue that has been duly settled in the second
appeal preferred by the petitioner/Society before the CIC.
6. In view of the inspection report filed by the respondent/MCD and
taking into consideration the fact that NOCs have been duly issued by the
ASI in respect of the subject premises, which clearly establishes that no
unauthorized construction has been carried out on the subject premises,
this Court is not inclined to proceed any further with the present petition,
which is accordingly dismissed as being devoid of merits.
7. Mr. Nijhawan, who appears in person for the petitioner/Society,
states that he has complied with the order dated 11.03.2011, whereunder
the present writ petition which was dismissed in default vide order dated
1.3.2011, was restored subject to payment of a sum of `50,000/- as
costs. The writ petition having been dismissed as being devoid of merits,
it is directed that the costs deposited by the petitioner/Society shall be
divided and paid in equal share to the respondent/MCD and respondent
No.5, for the unnecessary and frivolous litigation initiated by the
petitioner/Society against them, which appears to be an attempt to settle
personal scores with respondent No.5.
8. At this stage, counsel for respondent No.5 states that he does not
wish to receive the costs and the same may be paid to a worthy cause. It
is directed that the balance costs of `25,000/- payable to respondent No.5
shall be deposited by the Registry with the Bar Council of Delhi Indigent &
Disabled Lawyers Account, within four weeks and proof of deposit shall be
placed on record.
(HIMA KOHLI)
NOVEMBER 11, 2011 JUDGE
rkb
