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.
$~31
Through Mr.M.Husain, Advocate.
versus
P.K GUPTA COMMISSIONER NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through Ms.Biji Rajesh with Ms.Eshita Baruah, Advocates for MCD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
O R D E R
% 07.11.2016
Present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 12th August, 2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.7064/2016, whereby the respondent-North DMC was directed to reply to petitioner’s-society representation with regard to unauthorized and illegal construction within four weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that even though the respondent has considered the petitioner’s representation vide reply dated 9th September, 2016, the same is evasive, misleading and incomplete. He states that the petitioner’s representation with regard to property no.MD-28-29, MD-Block, Pitampura has not been dealt with on the ground that it does not fall within the jurisdiction of Civil Lines Zone. He points out that the respondent in the aforesaid writ
petition was Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, under whom the Rohini Zone also falls.
This Court has perused the reply dated 9th September, 2016 and finds that the petitioner’s representation with regard to 12 out of the 13 properties has been dealt with in detail by the respondent. In the event, the petitioner is not satisfied with the respondent’s response, the petitioner is at liberty to file the appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
As far as the property no.MD-28-29, MD-Block, Pitampura is concerned, this Court finds that the Executive Engineer (Building)-II, Civil Line Zone has referred the matter to Rohini Zone and this Court is confident that the concerned Executive Engineer of Rohini Zone shall deal with the said property within a reasonable time.
Consequently, this Court is of the view that there is no wilful disobedience of the Division Bench order.
Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
NOVEMBER 07, 2016 KA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's complaint regarding wilful disobedience of the Division Bench order is substantiated.
Ganga Jamuna Saraswati (Regd)
P.K Gupta
Manmohan
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
