Delhi High Court
Mohd.Suleman vs North Delhi Municipal ... on 7 December, 2021
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 07.12.2021
+ W.P.(C) 13910/2021 & CM APPL. 43909-11/2021
MOHD.SULEMAN ..... Petitioner
versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
(NDMC) AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Standing Counsel for Respondent
No.1/North DMC
Mr. Ashim Vachher, Standing Counsel for DDA with Mr.
Kunal Lakra for R-2 DDA
Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate and Mr. Parvinder Chauhan,
Advocate for R- 3/ DUSIB
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks a direction to respondent no. 1 to decide the
representation of the petitioner dated 11.10.2019, by which petitioner
is seeking a direction to respondent to allot an alternative shop in lieu
of the shop that was occupied by the petitioner on public land which
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:07.12.2021
Signing Date:08.12.2021 11:34:04 23:26
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
was demolished in the year 1975.
2. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner constructed a shop in
Meena Bazar, Opposite Jama Masjid, Delhi in the year 1971. He paid
damages to DDA uptil year 1975.
3. In 1975-76 during a demolition drive conducted during
emergency, the shop of the petitioner was demolished and he was not
allotted any alternative shop.
4. It is contended that on 11.10.1977 a policy was framed by DDA
for allotment of alternative place/shops to Motia Khan Steel
Merchants, who were evicted from Motia Khan area and whose shops
were demolished during the same demolition drive.
5. It is contended that repeatedly, petitioner has been writing
representations over the years but has not received any response from
the respondent.
6. Perusal of the paper book shows that as far back as on
02.06.2010, petitioner was responded by the respondent no. 1
informing him that his representation has been considered by the
competent authority and it was decided that there was no scope for
any new entrance in the existing plan and as such his request could
not be acceded to.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:07.12.2021
Signing Date:08.12.2021 11:34:04 23:26
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
7. Petitioner thereafter has again been representing to the
respondents.
8. It is an admitted position that after the shop was demolished in
1975 and the formulation of policy in 1977 and even after petitioner
was communicated by letter dated 02.06.2010 that his representation
has been considered by the competent authority and his request could
not be acceded to, petitioner has not approached any Court of law
seeking to enforce rights, if any.
9. This is a case where the petition is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of gross delay and latches in approaching the court of law.
Shop of the petitioner was demolished as far back as 1975 and
petitioner has waited for over 46 years in approaching this court.
10. The seemingly innocuous prayer of the petitioner, of seeking a
direction to respondents to dispose of his representation, appears to be
an attempt, on part of the petitioner, to seek to create a fresh a cause
of action so that he can overcome delay and latches.
11. In view of the above, there is no ground to direct respondents to
even decide his representation. I find no merit in the petition. The
petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
DECEMBER 7, 2021/'rs'
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:07.12.2021
Signing Date:08.12.2021 11:34:04 23:26
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
