Delhi High Court
Lok Sewak Cooperative House ... vs Sanjeev Kumar Jain & Ors on 12 September, 2012
Author: G. S. Sistani
05.
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 271/2012
% Judgment dated 12.09.2012
LOK SEWAK COOPERATIVE HOUSE
BUILDING SOCIETY LTD ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.P.K. Aggarwal and Ms.Mercy
Hussain, Advs.
versus
SANJEEV KUMAR JAIN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : None for respondent no.1 DDA.
Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Adv. for respondent
no.2 MCD.
Ms.Shavana Bari, Adv. for Mr.Rajiv
Nanda, Adv. for respondent no.3 along
with SI Amit Choudhary, P.S. Malviya
Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. By the present contempt petition, petitioner alleges willful disobedience
of the order dated 18.7.2011, passed by this Court, by DDA, MCD, SHO
of P.S. Malviya Nagar and Managing Director of respondent no.5.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the order dated
18.7.2011 the DDA was directed to ensure that the premises are not put to
any use other than the use permitted. Similarly, respondent no.5
(respondent no.4 in the present contempt petition) was restrained till the
next date of hearing from using the premises for the purposes other than
the permitted user.
3. At the outset, it may be noticed that the MCD is only concerned with the
unauthorized construction; the order dated 18.7.2011 cannot be applicable
to the MCD; and, thus, the contempt petition against the Executive
Engineer of the MCD is misconceived.
4. To establish contempt the petitioner must show that there is willful
disobedience of the order dated 18.7.2011 passed by this Court. The stand
taken by the DDA in the status report, which has been filed, would show
that the subject premises is not being used for a purpose other than the
permitted user. Respondent no.5 has placed on record communications
dated 17.10.1985 and 29.6.2011 addressed by the DDA to show that the
DDA had clarified that the premises can be used only for commercial
purposes including garment export office and actual packing, etc., of
readymade garments. The communications dated 29.6.2011 addressed by
Joint Director, M.P. read as under:
"No.F.55 (12)/79_IMPL Dated 17th October, 1985.
To
Shri Manjeet Singh,‟
Departmental Store-cum-Showroom No.1,
Geetanjali CBHS, New Delhi.
Dear Sir,
Please refer to your representation on the subject of
Departmental Store-cum-Showroom No.1, Geetanjali CHBS.
Delhi Development Authority has no objection to the
internal additions and alterations made by you which are of
temporary nature. There is also no objection to the installation of
iron grills on front and back gate of the premises.
The premises be used only for commercial purpose
including garment export office. Actual packing etc. of ready made
garments can however be done in the premises.
Yours faithfully
(SOM PARKASH)
Deputy Director (CE)"
"F3(57)/2009/MP/166 Dated 29.6.2011
From : H.S. Dhillon
Jt. Director (MP)
To,
Shri Jagpreet Singh Lamba,
D-318, Defence Colony,
New Delhi-110024
Sub.: Permissible activities under „Convenience Shopping Centre
(CSC)‟ in MPD-2021
Ref.: Letter No.Nil dated 20.06.2011
Sir,
With reference to your letter dated 20.06.2011 relating to
above cited subject, I am directed to inform that as per MPD-2021
provisions at Table 5.1, the activities permitted under „Convenience
Shopping Centre' are "Retail Shopping, Local level service
activities, Repair, Office, Bank, ATM, Informal Trade, Restaurant."
Yours faithfully,
(H.S. Dhillon)
Jt. Director (MP)"
5. Having regard to the stand taken by the DDA in the status report, which
has been filed, prima facie there is no willful disobedience of the order
dated 18.7.2011 passed by this Court, no grounds are made out to initiate
contempt proceedings against the respondents. Accordingly, contempt
petition stands dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SEPTEMBER 12, 2012
msr
