Poothakalan Mohammeden Welfare ... vs Union Of India And Ors.
2020 Latest Caselaw 718 Del

$~51

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                            Date of Decision: 03.02.2020
+      W.P.(C) 1217/2020
       POOTHAKALAN MOHAMMEDEN WELFARE
       ASSOCIATION DELHI (REGD.)                ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. S.P. Sharma, Adv.
                Versus
       UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                    ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with
                     Mr. Himanshu Pathak, G.P., Ms. Anubha
                     Bhardwaj, Mr. Jatin Teotia & Mr. Abhishek
                     Yadav, Advs. for UOI/R-1
                     Mr. Akhil Mittal, Standing Counsel with
                     Ms.Affifa Atiq, Adv. for R-7
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

                                    JUDGMENT

D.N. PATEL, Chief Justice (Oral)

CM APPL. 4154/2020 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 1217/2020

1. This so-called Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with the following prayers:

"a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for removal or entire shops/squatting or any

kind of encroachment over the public land i.e. pavement/footpath of the side wall of the Qabristan/Graveyard as well as road of Sultanpuri, Delhi.

b. This Hon'ble Court is further prayed to pass any other and further order as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstance of the case in the interest of justice."

2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and the counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 7, it appears that the petitioner is in search of an order for removal of shops and encroachments but the owners/occupiers of the shops have not been joined as party respondents. Thus, without hearing the owners/occupiers no such order can be passed for removal or demolition of the shops. Moreover, the illegality in the nature of construction cannot be adjudicated upon in a writ petition on the basis of annexures. Proper, cogent and convincing evidences are required to be led before the concerned trial court and that too after joining the concerned persons as party respondents. Thus, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition and therefore the same is dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

C.HARI SHANKAR, J FEBRUARY 03, 2020 ns