Delhi High Court
Ajeet Sood vs The Commissioner, North Delhi ... on 26 November, 2019
$~114
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 26th November, 2019
+ LPA 741/2019 and CM Nos. 50907, 50908/2019
AJEET SOOD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Anilendra Pandey, Adv.
versus
THE COMMISSIONER, NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Akhil Mittal, Standing
Counsel-North MCD
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 26.11.2019
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
CM No. 50908/2019 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
LPA 741/2019
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original
petitioner in W.P.(C) 7823/2019 which was disposed of by the learned
Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 20th September, 2019
(Annexure A-7 to the memo of this appeal).
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant (original
petitioner) and looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, we see
no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal for the following
reasons:
(a) This appellant (original petitioner) has prayed for demolition of 43
properties without arraying the owners/occupiers of the superstructures as
necessary party/respondents in the writ petition.
(b) The learned Single Judge vide order dated 22nd July, 2019 had
directed the appellant (original petitioner) in the writ petition, to file the
amended memo of parties after joining the owners/occupiers of the
properties as necessary parties. Despite the specific directions, the
amended memo of parties was never filed by this appellant in the writ
petition.
(c) The learned Single Judge had further directed this appellant
(original petitioner) to file an affidavit annexing therewith necessary
documents showing that he is a resident of House No. 8138, Arakshan
Road, Gali No.6, Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. However, no
such affidavit was filed.
(d) Thus, it appears that the appellant had filed the writ petition only to
blackmail and to extort money from the concerned parties whose
properties were to be demolished upon his prayers.
(e) Moreover, this appellant (original petitioner) had also pointed out
certain documents before the learned Single Judge and it was found that
the addresses to the same did not tally/match with the addresses so
mentioned in the writ petition. Thus, it appears that the writ petition was
preferred only with a view to get/coin the money from the
owners/occupiers of the said superstructures. Further, the appellant
(original petitioner) is not even a resident of the locality where the said 43
houses in question are situated.
(f) Looking at the order dated 20th September, 2019 passed by the
learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that no error is committed by
the learned Single Judge in finally disposing of WP(C) No. 7823/2019,,
hence, we see no reason to interfere with the same.
3. We therefore dismiss this appeal with costs of ₹ 25,000/- to be
deposited with the Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services
Authority, Central Office, 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 this appellant (original
petitioner) within a period of four weeks from today.
3. 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.
CM No. 50907/2019
1. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, this application also stands
disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
NOVEMBER 26, 2019/kr
