Petitioner challenged eviction actions. Court informed that respondents had already taken action under the Public Premises Act and matter was pending before the Estate Officer. Court held no further directions were necessary and disposed of the petition.
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.
$~4
versus
THE COMMISSIONER (SOUTH), MCD AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr Kapil Dutta, Adv. for SDMC. Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC with Mr Brajesh Kumar, Adv. for UOI. Mr Kush Sharma, Adv. for DDA.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
O R D E R % 02.11.2016
We are informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have already taken action with regard to property No.C-101, Mayapuri, Phase-II, New Delhi-110064 and the matter is pending before the Estate Officer under the provisions of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. In view of the action already taken, no further directions are necessary in this writ petition. The same stands disposed of accordingly.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
NOVEMBER 02, 2016 k
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manoj Gupta
The Commissioner (South), MCD
Badar Durrez Ahmed
Ashutosh Kumar
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
