Vaskar Saha vs Manish Gupta
2014 Latest Caselaw 6354 Del

*                  HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                               Cont. Cas (C) No.853/2014

                                       Decided on : 1st December, 2014

VASKAR SAHA                                            ...... Petitioner
                        Through:     Mr. Prateek Tushar Mohanty, Advocate.

                            Versus

MANISH GUPTA                                            ...... Respondent
                        Through:     Ms. Mini Pushkarna, SC with
                                     Ms. Namrata Mukim & Ms. Yoothica
                                     Pallavi, Advocates for the SDMC.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a contempt petition filed by the petitioner against the

respondent/SDMC on account of the alleged wilful disobedience of the

order dated 1.7.2014.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also

gone through the order in question.

3. By virtue of the said order, respondent/SDMC was directed to take

action against the illegal construction of Property No.B-1/173, Second

Floor, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058. The grievance of the petitioner

was that the owner of the aforesaid property in question has raised

unauthorized construction. The respondent had booked the aforesaid

property on 3.6.2014 and passed a demolition order on 26.6.2014. A

work stoppage notice was also purported to have been given to the owner

of the property on 12.6.2014 pursuant to which the owner of the said flat

had applied through the respondent for the purpose of regularization of

the alleged unauthorized construction. It has been stated in the order

itself that the application of the owner of the said flat for regularization of

the alleged unauthorized construction was also rejected on 26.6.2014

itself. It was assured to the court that an appropriate action will be taken

against the unauthorized construction raised by the owner of the property.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has not

carried out that assurance given to the court by removing the

unauthorized construction.

5. Ms. Mini Pushkarna, the learned counsel for the respondent is

present in response to an advance copy having been served and has stated

that a writ petition bearing No.6857/2014 has been filed by the owner of

the said flat, which is pending adjudication before this court and is listed

on 23.1.2015. In the said writ petition, the owner of the said flat had

prayed the court that his regularization plan, which has been filed afresh

with the respondent, be considered by the respondent/MCD.

Accordingly, it is contended that no action for contempt is made out

against the respondent.

6. I feel that there is some merit in the contention of the learned

counsel for the respondent. No action for contempt is called for against

the respondent at this stage as action has already been taken by booking

the unauthorized construction and passing a demolition order.

Accordingly, the petition is totally misconceived and the same is

dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

DECEMBER 01, 2014 'AA'