Delhi High Court
Surender Kuar Mangal vs Sanjeev Kumar & Ors on 15 January, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 15th January, 2015
+ CONT.CAS(C) 693/2012
SURENDER KUAR MANGAL ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. S.C. Singhal, Adv.
versus
SANJEEV KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Sunil Satyarthi, Adv.
for R1.
Mr. Shekhar Nanavaty, Adv. for R2.
ASI Prabhakaran, PS-Delhi Cantt. for R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CM. No. 16513/2013 (for Restoration)
1. Vide the instant application, applicant / petitioner seeks
recalling of order dated 30.09.2013 whereby the present petition
was dismissed in default.
2. Keeping in view the averments made in the instant
application and submission of ld. Counsel for the applicant, order
dated 30.09.2013 is recalled.
3. Consequently, the petition is restored to its original number.
+ CONT.CAS(C) 693/2012
1. With the consent of the parties, present petition is taken up
for final disposal.
2. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks directions thereby
punishing the respondents in accordance with law for violating the
order dated 24.07.2012 passed by this Court as under:
"Since the factual aspect are required to be
established, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to
dispose of this petition in limini with directions to the
first Respondent to decide petitioner's Representation
of 19th July, 2012 (Annexure P-6) objectively
uninfluenced by the partisan attitude alleged against it
by the petitioner and till Representation of 19th July,
2012 (Annexure P-6) is decided, with intimation to the
petitioner, status quo as of today in respect of the
subject premises be maintained. SHO of the concerned
Police Station is directed to ensure the compliance of
this order."
3. Mr. S.C. Singhal, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that the petitioner made complaints to the Chief Executive
Officer, Delhi Cantonment Board, Delhi Cantt and the SHO, PS-Delhi
Cantt, New Delhi regarding illegal and unauthorized construction in
property no. II/46/1, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt and demolition of common
staircase between property no. II/46/1 and II/45/1, Sadar Bazar, Delhi
Cantt.
4. Since no action was taken by the authorities mentioned above, the
petitioner was constrained to file a Writ Petition being no. 4403/2012
wherein owner of property no. II/46/1 as mentioned above was
respondent no. 2, Prem Lata. Accordingly, this Court vide order dated
24.07.2012, directed the respondents to maintain status quo till the
disposal of the representation dated 19.07.2012.
5. Mr. Singhal further submitted that the respondents mischievously
disposed of the aforesaid representation vide order dated 10.09.2012 and
informed the petitioner as under:
" Reference your complaint dated 19.07.2012.
In this connection it is to inform that you Delhi
Cantonment Board has initiated following actions
against the unauthorized construction done by
Sh. Sudhir Sugandh, S/o, Late Sh. Babu Lal Sugandh at
II/46, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt.
1. Cantonment Board has issued two demolition
notices under section 248 of Cantonment Act
dated 21.07.2012 and 24.07.2012 against which
Sh. Sudhir Sugandh has preferred appeal under
section 340 of Cantonment Act 2006.
2. Sh. Sudhir Sugandh, S/o, Late Sh. Babu Lal
Sugandh has been prosecuted under section 247
of Cantonment Act on 21.07.2012 and
24.07.2012.
3. Letter to SHO with copy to DCP, South West for
seizing the construction material and for
deputing a police officer so that no unauthorized
construction takes place under section 239 (2)
and 239 (4) of Cantonment Act 2006 were
written on 21.07.2012 and 24.07.2012.
6. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the unauthorized
construction was being carried out by owner of the property, i.e.,
Prem Lata, whereas her son namely Sudhir Sugandh has been
prosecuted on 21.07.2012 and 24.07.2012 under Section 247 and
248 of the Cantonments Act. Thus, the respondents instead of
prosecuting Prem Lata, the owner of the property, have deliberately
prosecuted her son Sh. Sudhir Sugandh just to save her. Moreover,
the action against Sh. Sudhir Sugandh was taken on 21.07.2012 and
24.07.2012, whereas this Court directed to maintain status quo vide
order dated 24.07.2012. Therefore, they have violated the orders
dated 24.07.2012 and accordingly action should be taken against
them.
7. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even after
10.09.2012, unauthorized construction was going on in the property
in question. To the said effect he made a complaint to the
concerned authority, however no action has been taken on the said
complaint.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Satyarthi, ld. Counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent no. 1 submits that on 10.09.2012, it was
conveyed to the petitioner that pursuant to order dated 24.07.2012,
respondent no. 1 has initiated action as noted above. Thus, the
representation of the petitioner has been disposed of and there is no
violation from their side.
9. It is further submitted that under Section 247 of the
Cantonments Act any person, who is carrying out the unauthorized
construction can be prosecuted under Section 247 and 248 of the
Act. Since, on the property in question, Sh. Sudhir Sugandh, S/o
Prem Lata was carrying out the construction, accordingly, he has
been prosecuted under Section 247 and 248 of the Cantonments
Act, 2006.
10. As far as the complaint of the petitioner is concerned, it has
been intimated to him vide communication dated 10.09.2012 that
action against Sh. Sudhir Sugandh, who was carrying out the
unauthorized construction has already been initiated. It is not the
case of the petitioner that from the date of order, i.e., on 24.07.2012
passed by this Court till disposal of the complaint on 10.09.2012,
any construction was carried out.
11. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that no
contempt has been committed by the respondents. Therefore, I am
not inclined to pass any order against them.
12. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
13. Consequently notices of contempt are discharged.
14. Needless to state that petitioner is at liberty to take steps if
any further unauthorized construction is carried out by any person
in the property in question.
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 15, 2015
jg
