Harish Arora vs Commissioner, Mcd & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 1128 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P.(C) 967/2012

                                           Decided on: 17th February, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF
HARISH ARORA                                              ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate with
                         Ms. Ruby Sharma and Mr. Shivam Tripathi,
                         Advocates

                   versus

COMMISSIONER, MCD & ORS                              ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, Standing Counsel,
                   MCD with Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, Advocate for R-1
                   and R-2.
                   Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for R-3/DDA.


CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia

for directions to respondent No.2/Town Planner, MCD to approve the plan

submitted by the petitioner for carrying out construction in the premises

bearing No.WZ-139, Khasra No.210, village Nangal Raya, Lajwanti Garden,

New Delhi.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner states that

the subject premises was mutated by MCD in favour of the petitioner vide

order dated 11.10.2010 and thereafter, the petitioner had applied to the

respondent No.1/MCD for sanction of a building plan. However, the officers

of respondent No.1/MCD orally informed the petitioner that the building plan

could not be sanctioned as the area in question is a park. No document has

been placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate his claim that he

applied to the respondent/MCD for sanction of a building plan. Nor has the

petitioner filed any order passed by the respondent/MCD on his pending

application.

3. Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2/MCD, who appears on

advance copy, states that the petitioner had applied to the respondent

No.1/MCD on 08.03.2011 for sanction of a building plan and vide order

dated 05.12.2011, the said request was rejected by the Department due to

non-compliance of the directions issued in the earlier letter dated

06.09.2011. He hands over the original records of the case, a perusal

whereof shows that initially, vide letter dated 09.03.2011, the petitioner had

been called upon to furnish a series of documents and submit afresh, a

correct plan as per the Building Byelaws. Thereafter, a number of letters

and reminders had been addressed by respondent No.1/MCD to the

petitioner including the letter dated 06.09.2011 and reminders dated

16.09.2011 and 08.11.2011. It is stated that when the petitioner did not

respond to any of the reminders issued by the respondent No.1/MCD, his

building plan application was rejected by the Executive Engineer (Building),

MCD, on 05.12.2011 due to non-compliance of the earlier directions.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner states on

instructions that the petitioner is not in receipt of any of the aforesaid

letters/reminders, much less the rejection order dated 05.12.2011. The

aforesaid submission is refuted by learned counsel for respondents No.1 and

2/MCD, who states that all the aforesaid letters/order were despatched by

speed-post to the petitioner and that he has the proof of their dispatch with

him.

5. Be that as it may, to put an end to the aforesaid controversy,

respondent No.1/MCD is directed to furnish copies of the aforesaid

letters/reminders and the final rejection order dated 05.12.2011 to the

petitioner within one week. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection

order passed by the respondent/MCD, he shall be entitled to seek his

remedies as may be available to him under the DMC Act.

6. The petition is disposed of.

                                                            (HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 17, 2012                                              JUDGE
rkb