Delhi High Court
N.S. Sharma & Ors. vs South Delhi Municipal Corp. & Anr. on 22 March, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 146/2017
% Pronounced on: 22nd March, 2017
N.S. SHARMA & ORS. ...Appellants
Through: Mr. Mohan K. Kukreja, Advocate
with Mr.B.L. Khatri, Advocate.
Versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION & ANR. ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Surender Sinha, Advocate with
Mr.Rameez Siddiqui, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal arises out of the order dated 16.01.2017, passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.369/2017. The unsuccessful
petitioners are the appellants before us.
2. The appellants herein filed the said writ petitions challenging the
order dated 25.05.2016 of the Executive Engineer (Bldg.), Central Zone,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) thereby permitting
installation of a lift in Nehru Apartments, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
3. Admittedly, the appellants herein/writ petitioners raised various
objections before the Executive Engineer and after considering the same
the order dated 25.05.2016 came to be passed holding that there is no
substance in the objections. It was also observed that the conditions laid
down for obtaining NOC for installation of lift and further conditions to
be followed after installation of lift have adequately addressed the
grievances of the appellants herein.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
5. It may be true that there are allegations of illegal and unauthorized
constructions and encroachments in the building in question. However, it
is the specific case of SDMC that the alleged illegal construction would
have no bearing on the installation of the lift if it is installed as per the
norms of DDA. It is also relevant to note that W.P.(C)No.2000/2014
filed by the respondent No.2 herein was disposed of by this Court by
order dated 16.08.2016 taking note of the fact that the installation of the
lift by the respondent No.2 needs to be processed as per the fresh policy
of DDA. Admittedly, the appellants herein were also heard in W.P.(C)
No.2000/2014. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge declined
to entertain the writ petition observing:-
"9. This Court thus endorses the submission of
respondent no.2 (R.K.Garg) that this appears to be a
personal vendetta which the petitioner is harbouring
against him. The litigation dates back to the year
2012; this fight is not being permitted to come to a
close. The order passed on 16.8.2016 has already
examined the order dated 25.5.2016 (now impugned)
in WP(C) 2000/2014. The order was passed in the
presence of the present petitioner; in fact the counsel
appearing for N.S.Sharma and others was also
appearing for the same parties on 16.8.2016; he did
not raise any objection to the withdrawal of that
petition at that time. The arguments propounded today
are the same which were the subject matter of his
objections. The NOC has also been granted in favour
of respondent no.2 (R.K.Garg) as per the directions
contained in the order (dated 16.8.2016); the
petitioners have approached this Court five months
later. This Court is not inclined to entertain this writ
petition.
10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that he would also be laying a challenge to the
policy of the DDA for grant of NOC for the
installation of the lift; this policy is not as per law.
This Court notes that this is not a prayer in the present
petition. This petition is without any merit. It is
dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-."
6. We do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the above-
said order. Admittedly, the alleged unauthorized construction in the
building in question is not an issue in the present appeal. Even with
regard to the contention of the appellants that installation of the lift would
cause obstructions in case of emergency evacuation is concerned, it is an
admitted fact that the lift has not been made operational yet and the
respondent No.2 is required to obtain a separate No Objection Certificate
from the Delhi Fire Service as a pre-requisite for obtaining the
completion certificate. As such the aspect of fire safety in terms of the
Fire Service Act, 2007 is to be considered by Chief Fire Officer under the
provisions of the Fire Service Act, 2007 at the time of granting
completion certificate.
7. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any infirmity in
the order under appeal.
8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
MARCH 22, 2017/'anb' SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
