Single paragraph order disposing of a writ petition challenging the failure of the respondent corporation to take action regarding alleged property misuse. The court accepted the respondent's undertaking and disposed of the petition without further orders.
Petition disposed of; no further orders called for.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~1
..... Petitioners Through Mr.Lalit Thakru, Advocate.
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS
..... Respondents Through Mr.Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate along with Mr.Mohd. Idrish, A.E. for R-1. Mr.Animesh Rastogi, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
O R D E R
% 20.07.2016
Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that in spite of misuse being carried out of the property bearing No.F-36, Ground Floor, Kalkaji, no action has been taken by the competent Body i.e. by the respondent.
Respondent no.1 on advance notice has put in appearance. His submission is that the property was inspected on four occasions and lastly it was inspected yesterday. No misuse has been noted in any portion of the property. In fact basement is lying vacant. This submissions has been made by learned counsel for the respondent under instructions from the Assistant Engineer Mr.Mohd. Idrish. His further submission is that in terms of the photographs annexed by the
petitioner which refers to a Fashon’s Closet on the front portion of the property but that portion was lying locked. The same shall also be inspected and in case misuse is noted in the front portion of the property the respondent undertakes to take action in accordance with law. Additional submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that it appears to be a personal vendetta between the petitioner and respondent no.3. In fact, there were earlier litigations inter se the parties. Directions to the SDMC were given vide order dated 07.4.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.2082/2014. This Court noting the above facts need not to delve any further into this aspect of the matter. The response of the respondent and the undertaking has noted supra herein is taken on record.
No further orders are called for in this petition. Petition disposed of in the above terms.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
JULY 20, 2016 ndn
MANJU GUPTA & ANR
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS
INDERMEET KAUR
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
