Birender Sangwan vs North Delhi Municipal ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 3875 Del

$~15
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P.(C) 11199/2017
%                             Date of decision : 11th July, 2018

       BIRENDER SANGWAN                    ..... Petitioner
                    Through : Petitioner (Adv.) in person.
                    versus
       NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL
       CORPORATION AND ORS.                .....Respondents
                    Through : Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with
                              Mr. Ajjay Aroraa, Mr. Pranvir
                              Sethi, Mr. Mohit Bhandari and
                              Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advs. for
                              North DMC.
                              Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj,
                              SPP, CBI with Mr. T.P. Singh,
                              Adv. for R-36.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
                     JUDGMENT (ORAL)

GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

1. Notice issued to the respondent nos.16, 20 and 31 have been returned unserved.

2. Though we were initially been persuaded to issue notice in the writ petition, however, we find that the writ petition makes vague allegations of unauthorized constructions in respect one property in Ashok Vihar; one property in Kamla Nagar; two in Lawrence Road; one in Shakti Nagar; one in G.T. Karnal Road and two in Model Town.

3. The petitioner admits that there are other unauthorized constructions in these areas and he is unable to explain as to why he has identified and chosen these properties only.

4. It may further be noted that in the memo of parties, the petitioner, who is a practicing lawyer, does not disclose his residential address but has given the address of his chamber. He states that he is a resident of Rohini.

The petitioner is unable to state either that there is no unauthorized construction by the persons in Rohini or that the municipal corporation has taken action in accordance with law.

5. It may be noted that the writ petitioner has randomly arrayed 36 municipal officers without making any specific allegations against them.

6. It is submitted by the petitioner Mr. Birender Sangwan, Advocate, who appears in person, that this writ petition is premised on the information provided to him by some property dealers. This is most unfortunate.

7. We are not satisfied that this writ petition claiming to have been filed in public interest has been filed bona fide or in public interest.

This writ petition is therefore, dismissed.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

C.HARI SHANKAR, J JULY 11, 2018/aj