Delhi High Court
Smt. Madhu Gupta vs North Delhi Municipal ... on 10 March, 2022
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10th March, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 3464/2022& CM APPL. 10152-53/2022
SMT. MADHU GUPTA ..... Petitioner
versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankit Jain, Mohit Gupta, Mr. Vishal Saxena, Ms.
Meenakshi Garg and Ms. Aayushi Jain, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. AjjayAroraa, Standing Counsel with Mr. Kapil Dutta,
Standing Counsel for NDMC (through VC)
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
1. Petitioner impugns the order dated 16.06.2021 passed under
Section 344(2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957
(hereinafter referred to as the MCD Act) consequent to order dated
03.02.2021 passed under Section 338 of the MCD Act revoking the
sanction granted to the petitioner for raising the construction.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent has
erred in not appreciating that the earlier order of sanction was
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:10.03.2022
Signing Date:11.03.2022 12:40:59 23:51
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
superseded by a subsequent sanction which has not been taken into
account.
3. Learned counsel submits that none of the grounds mentioned in
the order of revocation would be available in view of the fact that a
second sanction was granted. He submits that respondent has not even
considered any of the representations of the petitioner. He
accordingly, submits that petitioner shall give a detailed
representation to the respondent and prays that respondent be directed
to consider the same.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the orders
impugned herein are appealable and petitioner should exercise the
remedy of an appeal. He however, submits that if any representation is
made same shall be considered in accordance with law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order is
erroneous on the face of it because the second sanction has not been
considered.
6. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of giving liberty
to the petitioner to give a detailed representation to the respondent.
Respondent shall consider the representation in accordance with law
and also grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:10.03.2022
Signing Date:11.03.2022 12:40:59 23:51
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
7. In case Petitioner is still aggrieved by the decision of the
Respondent Corporation on her representation, she would be at liberty
to impugn the orders, impugned herein, before the appropriate forum
in accordance with law.
8. The respondent shall dispose of the representation of the
petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of three weeks of
the receipt of the same.
9. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
10. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor
commented upon the merits of the contentions of the either parties.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 10, 2022
'rs'
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:10.03.2022
Signing Date:11.03.2022 12:40:59 23:51
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
