Manu Shankar vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors
2018 Latest Caselaw 1024 Del

#28

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                              Judgment delivered on: 12.02.2018

LPA 43/2018, CM No.4004/2018, CM No.4005/2018 & CM No.4006/2018


MANU SHANKAR                                         ..... Appellant



                                            versus


DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& ORS                       ..... Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant   : Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Advocate with Mr. Shashank Khurana, Advocate
                      for R-1/DDA

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

                                 JUDGMENT

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Delhi

High Court Act, 1966, assails an order dated 29.11.2017, passed by the

learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3537/2017 titled as 'Manu

Shankar vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.', whereby, the said petition

instituted on behalf of the appellant essentially came to be dismissed on

account of the circumstance that the demolition and sealing orders were

passed by the Statutory Authority after 11.08.2017, which have been assailed

by the aggrieved party by way of a statutory appeal, pending adjudication

before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant states that the

Appellate Tribunal, MCD has stayed the operation of the demolition order

on a technical issue raised on behalf of the aggrieved party. In other words,

the appellant proposes that this Court assume the jurisdiction of the

Appellate Tribunal, MCD, and determine the statutory appeal pending

adjudication there in the present proceedings instituted by the appellant.

3. In our considered view, the submission made on behalf of the

appellant is devoid of merit and untenable. The Statutory Authority has

already taken action in accordance with law, as is evident from the said

demolition and sealing orders that have been passed by them.

4. The appeal being misconceived is dismissed. The pending

applications also stand disposed of.

5. There shall be no order as to costs.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE)

DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 12, 2018 dn