Delhi High Court
Jatinder Pahwa vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 18 May, 2023
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3455
$~67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 18.05.2023
+ CM(M) 842/2023
JATINDER PAHWA ..... Petitioner
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Nishant Anand and Ms.
Gugun Bansal, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ms. Jagrati Singh, Standing Counsel
for MCD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
CM APPL. 26328/2023 (for exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 26329/2023 (for exemption from filing entire Trial
Court Record)
3. This is an application seeking exemption from filing the entire
Trial Court Record.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:18.05.2023
19:32:26
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3455
4. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
5. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 842/2023 & CM APPL. 26327/2023 (for stay)
6. Petitioner challenges the order dated 16.05.2023 in A.No.
286/2023 filed before the learned Appellate Tribunal MCD (hereinafter
referred to as "ATMCD"), whereby the learned ATMCD had simply
issued notice on the appeal and declined to hear the request seeking ex
parte stay of the vacation notice dated 03.05.2023.
7. Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
petitioner brings to the notice of this Court the order dated 08.05.2023 in
W.P.(C) 6011/2023 titled as "Jatinder Pahwa vs. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi" whereby this Court had granted 10 days time and
directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner in
pursuance of the aforesaid vacation notice for a period of 10 days to
enable the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law to file an
appeal before the appropriate forum.
8. Mr. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel, accordingly submits that in
pursuance of the aforesaid directions, an appeal under Section 347B of
the DMC Act, 1957, was filed.
9. Thereafter, learned Senior Counsel brings attention of this Court
to the impugned order to submit that, whether the application seeking
stay of the vacation notice is valid or invalid, ought to have been
considered by the learned ATMCD after hearing the submissions made
by the petitioner herein,which was not done.
10. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in case the application was
not maintainable or even the appeal was not maintainable, the appeal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:18.05.2023
19:32:26
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3455
itself ought to have been dismissed, so as to enable the petitioner to take
appropriate steps subsequent thereto.
11. Mr. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel submits that having not
considered the aforesaid submissions, the petitioner is in a qaundry,
whereby no relief against such vacation notice is addressable by the
petitioner is an appropriate form.
12. Per contra, Ms. Jagrati Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the respondent MCD on an advance notice submits that there indeed
is no appeal available against the vacation notice contemplated under
Section 343 (2) and, therefore, the ATMCD has rightly passed the
impugned order.
13. Ms. Singh, learned standing counsel submits that it is only against
the demolition order that any such interim directions could have been
passed.
14. She submits that the petitioner has not filed any appeal against the
demolition order as such and, thus, there is no question of interference
by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
15. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner and also learned standing counsel for
the respondent MCD, and is of the considered opinion that it is the
indelible right of the petitioner to be heard and an order giving reasons
as to on what grounds and on what basis, the orders are passed, is the
substratum of principles of natural justice, which can not be diluted.
16. In view of the aforesaid submissions as also the fact that by a
perfunctory order, the ATMCD has refused to hear the request of the
petitioner for an ex parte stay of the vacation notice dated 03.05.2023
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:18.05.2023
19:32:26
Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3455
the same is unsustainable in law.
17. Considering the fact that the ten days period as granted to the
petitioner vide the order dated 08.05.2023 passed by this Court is
expiring today, it would be in the interest of justice to continue the
aforesaid stay uptill 30.05.2023.
18. It is made clear the learned ATMCD may hear and dispose of the
application on or before 30.05.2023.
19. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition along with
pending application is disposed of with no order as to costs.
20. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
MAY 18, 2023/nd
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:18.05.2023
19:32:26
