Delhi High Court
Nisha Sharma vs Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors on 1 May, 2017
$~23 to 25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M.Nos.27384-27385/2016 in CONT.CAS(C) 690/2010
NISHA SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Deepak Anand with Ms.Hemlata
Rawat, Advocates.
versus
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.D.K.Rustagi with Mr.Apoorv
Rastogi, Advocates.
Ms.Prabhsahay Kaur, ASC for
GNCTD with Mr.Sunil Chaudhary,
Dy.CFO and Mr.Gurumukh Singh,
DO (DFS).
Mr.Anurag Kumar, Advocate for
DJB.
WITH
+ CONT.CAS(C) 838/2016 & C.M.Nos.24555/2016, 27102/2016,
13840/2017
NISHA SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Deepak Anand with Ms.Hemlata
Rawat, Advocates.
versus
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.D.K.Rustagi with Mr.Apoorv
Rastogi, Advocates.
Mr.Manish Kumr Srivastava,
Advocate for BSES YPL.
Ms.Prabhsahay Kaur, ASC for
CONT.CAS(C) 690/2010 & connected matters Page 1 of 6
GNCTD with Mr.Sunil Chaudhary,
Dy.CFO and Mr.Gurumukh Singh,
DO (DFS).
AND
+ C.M.No.24344/2016 in W.P.(C) 2095/2016
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.D.K.Rustagi with Mr.Apoorv
Rastogi, Advocates.
versus
M/S. BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Manish Kumr Srivastava,
Advocate for BSES YPL.
Mr.Deepak Anand with Ms.Hemlata
Rawat, Advocates for landlady/Nisha
Sharma.
Ms.Prabhsahay Kaur, ASC for
GNCTD with Mr.Sunil Chaudhary,
Dy.CFO and Mr.Gurumukh Singh,
DO (DFS).
% Date of Decision: 01st May, 2017
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. In the present batch of matters, the issue that arises for consideration
is whether the buildings in question i.e. 470, 471 and 472, Chandani Chowk,
Delhi-110 006 are fire safe or not. It is pertinent to mention that Mr.Anil
Kumar Gupta & Ors. are occupants in a property whose owner is Ms.Nisha
Sharma. Admittedly, there are inter se disputes including civil suits pending
between the owner and the occupants.
2. On 06th April, 2005 in W.P.(C) Nos.5638-45/2005, a Division Bench
of this Court had recorded the undertaking of the occupants, Mr.Anil Kumar
Gupta & Ors., that within a period of three months, they shall incorporate
fire safety measures in accordance with law, failing which, the protection
granted by the Court shall stand automatically vacated. Till that time, the
supply of electricity was not to be disconnected.
3. In contempt petitions as well as in the writ petition, both sides are
blaming each other for delay in incorporating fire safety measures, in
particular, the construction of 50,000 litres water tank.
4. As late as 24th March, 2017, another Division Bench of this Court in
LPA No.387/2016 clarified that the water tank shall be constructed under
the supervision of Dr.Maqsood E.Nazar in view of the consensual order that
was passed in Cont.Cas(C) No.690/2010.
5. Today Mr.D.K.Rustagi, learned counsel for Mr.Anil Kumar Gupta &
Ors. states that his clients are in the process of seeking a clarification from
the Division Bench as to how the order dated 24th March, 2017 can be
complied with as on the date the said order was passed, the water tank had
already been constructed.
6. It is pertinent to mention that C.M.No.24334/2016 had been filed in
W.P.(C) No.2095/2016 by Mr.Anil Kumar Gupta seeking extension of only
thirty days from 28th June, 2016 to comply with the order dated 30th March,
2016, by virtue of which the applicants-occupants had been directed to make
50,000 litres underground water tank operational.
7. Today, learned counsel for Delhi Fire Service has handed over a
status report dated 24th April, 2017. The said report reads as under:-
"1. In pursuant to the order dated 23.02.2017 of the High
Court of Delhi in WP (C) 2095/2016, Smt. Nisha Sharma vide
letter dated 23.03.2017, Sarvshri Ramesh Kumar Yadav, Anil
Kumar Gupta, Hari Om Aggarwal, Shiv Parkash Aggarwal
AND Smt. Sunita Aggarwal vide letter dated 17.03.2017
submitted a formal request to this department for issue of NOC.
The application was not in the time directed by the Hon'ble
Court in its order dated 23.02.2017. However application was
duly processed and the premises was inspected by the team of
officers concerned of this department on 08.03.2017 and
06.04.2017. Ground floors shops and under ground water
storage tank was inspected but inspection for upper floors was
denied by Mr R.D. Sharma on behalf of Smt Nisha Sharma
(landlord). However report is as under.
2. The under ground water storage tank has been constructed
under two shops but the details of the tank such as capacity,
dimensions, operational condition, structural stability
certificate was not provided. In addition to this fire pump, draw
off connection, proper manhole with cover, water replenishment
arrangement are not yet made. The tank was lying empty.
3. The affidavit dated 10.08.2016 filed by the petitioner in
WP (C) 2095/2016 reveals that the capacity of the water
storage tank is only 47,100 ltrs as against 50,000 ltrs.
4. The department is neither competent nor qualified for
ascertaining the structural stability of the building and tank.
Accordingly the Hon'ble Court may be requested to either
appoint qualified structural engineer or engage some
professional from IIT etc. for ascertaining structural stability
and exact capacity of water storage tank.
5. In view of the above, the NOC/Fire Safety Certificate from
fire safety point of view cannot be issued at this stage. Hon'ble
High Court may be apprised accordingly."
(emphasis supplied)
8. From the aforesaid status report, it is apparent that the contention of
the occupants Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. that the underground water
storage tank is operational, is not correct.
9. Consequently, as the underground water storage tank is not
operational and for nearly twelve years the order dated 06th April, 2005 has
not been complied with, this Court is of the view that public interest
demands that the buildings in question be sealed and the electricity
connection be disconnected till the buildings in question have been made
fire compliant.
10. After all, it is settled law that inter se disputes between the occupants
and the owner cannot hold the public interest to ransom.
11. If either the owner or the occupants is of the view that the buildings
have been sealed due to neglect or failure to discharge a legal duty on the
part of the other party, the aggrieved party is given liberty to file a suit for
damages/compensation against the other.
12. In any event, this Court is of the view that in such matters it must
adhere to the precautionary principle.
13. Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer, BSES YPL is directed to
immediately give effect to the order dated 06th April, 2005 and the letter
dated 22nd January, 2016 written by Mr. A.K. Sharma, Director, Directorate
of Delhi Fire Service, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the CEOs of BSES Yamuna
and Delhi Jal Board.
14. As and when the underground storage water tank is operational and an
NOC has been obtained from the Chief Fire Officer, either of the parties is
given liberty to file an application seeking recall/modification/variation of
the present order.
List on 18th July, 2017.
C.M.No.13840/2017
Mr.D.K.Rustagi, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Anil Kumar Gupta
& Ors. prays for and is permitted to file a reply-affidavit within a period of
two weeks. Rejoinder-affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date of
hearing.
List on the date fixed.
Order dasti.
MANMOHAN, J
MAY 01, 2017
KA
