Delhi High Court
Dilip Kumar vs North Delhi Municipal ... on 3 September, 2020
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 03.09.2020
+ W.P.(C) 5950/2020
DILIP KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kuldeep Vashisht, Adv.
versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
JUDGMENT
D.N. PATEL, Chief Justice (Oral)
Proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video
conferencing.
1. This so-called Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with the
following prayers:-
"17. Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments
presented and authorities cited, it is humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to decree a writ of mandamus
or any other writ, order or direction declaring that:
a. Respondents be held accountable for all violations of
constitutional and legislative guarantees, which
resulted in denying the poverty stricken slum dwellers
Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ
KUMAR
Location:
Signing Date:04.09.2020
21:22:33
their right to healthy environment and no illegal
construction specially where people visits regularity
and that an independent inquiry be ordered to look
into the incidents of violations.
b. For a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
Respondents to ensure effective implementation of
their responsibilities.
c. For an order directing Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 for
immediate action against the respondent no. 3 thereby
demolish the illegal construction and restore the
building i.e ITL Twin Tower, Netaji Subhash Palace,
Delhi - 110034 to its original structure. Also book the
culprit to the justice.
d. For an order directing Respondent No. 3 for
immediate stoppage of the works as danger to
residents/passer by on the said building i.e ITL Twin
Tower, Netaji Subhash Palace, Delhi - 110034.
e. For any such other and suitable order/s as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts
and circumstances of the case and in the interest of
justice."
2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this is not a properly
framed or constituted Public Interest Litigation at all, but a petition filed
without required care or responsibility, for reasons best known to the
petitioner.
3. Much has been argued by counsel for the petitioner about the so-
called illegality in the construction, as stated in this writ petition, pertaining
to the building in question, ITL Twin Towers at Netaji Subhash Palace,
Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ
KUMAR
Location:
Signing Date:04.09.2020
21:22:33
Delhi.
4. It is narrated by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, while
visiting one Bikanerwala shop, noticed two floors being constructed in the
building i.e. ITL Twin Tower, Netaji Subhash Palace, Delhi-110034. The
petitioner then arrived at a conclusion that as the building in question is an
old construction, two additional floors cannot be built on the same.
5. However, there is no material at all disclosed in the petition to support
this allegation that the construction is illegal or without sanction. The
petitioner has neither stated the source of any information he might have
received in this regard, nor the basis for his belief that the construction is
illegal. There is only a vague averment that the petition is based on
information in the public domain, including the internet. This is hardly
sufficient to form an opinion on the subject and move the Court by way of a
public interest litigation.
6. Thus, without any basis and without any knowledge, this petition has
been preferred alleging illegality in the construction.
7. The legality or otherwise of the construction cannot be established
without any cogent and convincing evidence to be led before the concerned
authorities or competent Court.
8. Moreover, the petitioner has made these allegations without even
carrying out any inquiry as to the ownership or management thereof. The
petitioner claims to have credible information regarding the illegality in the
construction, but only the building itself i.e. ITL Twin Tower ("Through its
Owner/ Management/ Director") is joined as party respondent No.3. The
owner of the said building is not identified or joined as a party respondent.
The petitioner does not disclose that he had made any efforts whatsoever to
Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ
KUMAR
Location:
Signing Date:04.09.2020
21:22:33
enquire into this aspect, before filing the present petition.
9. The petitioner, claiming to be a public spirited citizen and social
activist, has approached this Court without even the minimal diligence.
Other than photographs of the ongoing construction and the representations
made by him, he has not annexed a single document in support of his
allegations. This is wholly insufficient to meet the minimum threshold for a
public interest litigation to be entertained.
10. For the above reasons, we are not inclined to exercise our powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to decide the legality or
otherwise of the construction in question. It is made clear that dismissal of
this petition does not constitute any expression of opinion on this question.
11. Hence, there is no substance in this writ petition and the same is
dismissed with costs of Rs.25000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Delhi
State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from today. The aforesaid
amount shall be utilized for the programme "Access to Justice".
12. A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Member Secretary, Delhi
State Legal Services Authority, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
CHIEF JUSTICE
PRATEEK JALAN, J
SEPTEMBER 3, 2020/kks
Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ
KUMAR
Location:
Signing Date:04.09.2020
21:22:33
