Delhi High Court
Shri Chandrashekhar vs North Delhi Municipal ... on 11 December, 2019
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11th December, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 12336/2019
SHRI CHANDRASHEKHAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhisht Hela, Adv.
Versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Monika Arora, SC with Mr.
Harsh Ahuja and Mr. Kushal Kumar,
Mr. Ajjay Aroraa and Mr. Kapil
Dutta, Advs. for North Delhi
Municipal Corporation
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 11.12.2019
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
1. This so-called Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been preferred with
the following prayers:
"(i) Issue writ of mandamus or any other writ/
order/direction to the Respondent No. 1, for taking action
against the Commercial properties bearing Plot No. E-1085,
Saraswati Vihar Delhi 110034, Plot no. 184, Kohat enclave,
Delhi-110034, , Plot no. 1, Kailash Enclave, Delhi-110034,
Plot No. 19 Shop No. 2 &3, Kailash Enclave, Delhi-110034, as
per law.
(ii) Keep check so that no such construction is carried out in
the coming future; Appoint a local commissioner to assist the
Respondent for demolition the unauthorised and illegal
constructions/encroachment existing inside and outside the said
properties, and or any other stricter/encroachment.
(iii) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper."
2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner is in search of
demolition of the following properties:
(a) Commercial property situated at Plot No. E-1085, Saraswati Vihar
Delhi 110034;
(b) Construction on the property situated at Plot no. 184, Kohat enclave,
Delhi-110034;
(c) Construction on the property situated at Plot no. 1, Kailash Enclave,
Delhi-110034; and
(d) Construction on the property situated at Plot No. 19 Shop No. 2&3,
Kailash Enclave, Delhi-110034.
3. It appears from the facts of the case that this is not a "Public Interest
Litigation" at all. Petitioner has targeted the aforesaid properties which
belong to respondent no. 2/Rakesh Pahwa. This is absolutely a "Private
Interest Litigation" or a "blackmailing type of litigation".
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 submits that there are
several such other properties similarly situated in the aforesaid area, but the
petitioner has chosen only aforesaid four properties and that too such
properties which are related to respondent no. 2 for the reasons best known
to the petitioner.
5. Thus, it appears that petitioner is in search of demolition of already
constructed properties, which are in the possession of different persons. The
legality or otherwise of the construction cannot be decided in the writ
petition with the help of annexures. Cogent and convincing evidences are to
be led before the concerned authorities/tribunal/trial court. Even for the
process of demolition, the respondents have to follow the procedure as
established by law.
6. Moreover, the petitioner is a resident of Rani Bagh area, New Delhi as
mentioned in the memo of parties; whereas the aforesaid properties are
situated at Sarswati Vihar Kohat Enclave, Kailash Enclave, which are
approximately 10 kms away from the residence of the petitioner. Thus, it
appears that this is a blackmailing type of litigation. The legality and
otherwise of the construction cannot be decided in the writ petition. We are
not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, for the relief as prayed for in this writ
petition.
7. On earlier occasion also, this very petitioner had preferred a writ
petition being WP(C) no. 7567/2019 against a property, which was related to
respondent no. 2/Rakesh Pahwa and the said writ petition was disposed of by
this Court vide order dated 16th July, 2019.
8. Thus, it appears that the petitioner is only after the properties relating
to respondent no. 2 for the reasons best known to the petitioner or it may be
for blackmailing the respondent no. 2.
9. In view of these facts and reasons, we see no reason to entertain this
writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed with costs of ₹10,000/- to be
deposited by the petitioner with the Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal
Services Authority, Patiala House Courts Complex, New Delhi. The said
amount shall be utilised for the programme "Access to Justice". The
aforesaid amount shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of four
weeks from today. Copy of this order be sent to the Member Secretary,
Delhi State Legal Services Authority, Central Office, Patiala House Courts
Complex, New Delhi-110001 for information.
CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
DECEMBER 11, 2019
r.bararia
