Delhi High Court
Praveen Jain vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation on 4 September, 2018
#4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 04.09.2018
W.P.(C) 8574/2018
PRAVEEN JAIN ..... Petitioner
Versus
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Amit Kr.
Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Ms. Anju Gupta, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India prays as follow:-
a) "Pass a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ/order(s)/direction(s) against the respondent,
thereby directing or ordering the respondent to allow
a period of 15 days to the petitioner to remove his
machines, raw/furnished material out of the premises
so sealed by the respondent i.e. premises bearing Plot
No. 20, Khasra No. 13/5/1, Karawal Nagar Industrial
Area, Delhi-110094;
Any other relief may also be granted by the Hon'ble
Court in favour of the petitioner as well as against the
respondent"
2. A perusal of the prayer clause extracted hereinabove clearly
reveals that, without assailing the act of sealing carried out by the
EDMC, in accordance with law, the petitioner has limited himself to
the relief of de-sealing of the subject property, in order to enable him
to remove his goods lying sealed therein.
3. Furthermore, the petitioner has also not assailed the sealing
order passed by the EDMC, prior to the sealing of the subject
premises for misuse thereof, in the present proceedings.
4. In W.P. (C) 4677/1985, titled as "M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of
India & Ors" vide its judgment and order dated 16.02.2006, a three
Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly concluded that, the
expression 'to erect a building' in relation to provisions of Section
345(A) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'said Act') means and includes the 'conversion of
user' therein.
5. A further reading of the provisions of Section 347(B) and in
particular sub-section (m) thereof clearly provides that, an order
directing sealing of unauthorised constructions under Section 345(A),
is an order against which an appeal may be preferred before the
Appellate Tribunal.
6. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court has no
jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner, in view of
the effective remedy of statutory appeal provided under the provisions
of the said Act.
7. The petition is therefore dismissed, whilst reserving liberty to
the petitioner to assail the act of commission on behalf of the EDMC,
hereinbefore elaborated, in accordance with law, before the Appellate
Tribunal Municipal Corporation of Delhi (ATMCD).
8. A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the
parties under the signatures of Court Master.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 04, 2018
p'ma
