Disposed

Brig. (Retired) Brij Mohan Khanna v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation (Sdmc)

Delhi HC16 Jan 2017W.P.(C)/339/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Senior citizen petitioner exited regarding garage sealing by SDMC. Unable to approach Appellate Tribunal within statutory time, he relied on an Apex Court order granting time extension. High Court allowed approach to the Appellate Tribunal subject to paying costs as per the referenced Supreme Court direction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to approach the Appellate Tribunal subject to depositing Rs.25,000/- as costs and following the order after a negative decision in these proceedings.

Brig. (Retired) Brij Mohan Khanna Vs South Delhi Municipal… — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 339/2017

¶4

BRIG. (RETIRED) BRIJ MOHAN KHANNA

¶5

..... Petitioner Through Mr.Pramod Saigal and Mr.Jaskaran Singh, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (SDMC)

¶8

..... Respondent Through Mr.Roshan Lal Goel and Ms.Anju Gupta, Advocates for SDMC/R-1.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

¶11

O R D E R % 16.01.2017

¶12

W.P.(C) 339/2017 & C.M. No.1561/2017

¶13

Petitioner is stated to be an 86 year old senior citizen. He is aggrieved by the fact that his garage i.e. garage no.26G, H-Block, Saket, New Delhi had been sealed by the Municipal Corporation. This sealing order has been passed on 18.6.2012. Admittedly, the petitioner has not approached the Appellate Body i.e. the ATMCD. He submits that he has however been making several representations to the Department on this score. The last representation made by the petitioner to the Department is dated 18.4.2016. His submission is that this representation has not been answered till date.

¶14

On advance notice, learned counsel for the Department/SDMC/respondent has put in appearance. His

¶15

submission is that the case of the petitioner is time barred and he should have approached the ATMCD within the time which has been afforded by the statute. Noting the above submission (that the representation dated 18.4.2016 has not been answered by the Department) let the same be answered in accordance with law. On the order being passed by the Department, the petitioner would be at liberty to get his grievances addressed.

¶16

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar proceedings where the case of the petitioners in those cases had been time barred and they had not been able to approach the ATMCD in time a direction has been given by the Apex Court enlarging the time period to approach the ATMCD. He fervently prays that a similar order also be passed in this case.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order passed by the Apex Court on 15.12.2016 in IA No.2768 in I .A. no.22 and I.A. no.22 in Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No.. 4677 of 1985 M.C.Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors. wherein the Apex Court had inter alia noted as under:

¶18

“4. The applicants in the aforenoted interlocutory applications have approached this Court seeking an extension of time, so as to approach the concerned Tribunal on account of the fact, that the concerned Tribunal was not approached within the stipulated 30 days’ time depicted in this Court’s order dated 30.04.2013, or the extended time permitted vide order dated 31.10.2013.

¶19

5. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand, we hereby extend the period to approach the concerned Tribunal by

¶20

two weeks from today, for those who have not filed the appeal. For those who have already filed appeals beyond the time prescribed, the delay is condoned. The above-mentioned relief is being granted to the applicants, subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) as costs. The above mentioned costs shall be deposited by each of the applicants with the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Welfare Trust within two weeks from today. ”

¶21

Noting the above approach of the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner should also be considered sympathetically. If the case of the petitioner is decided in the negative, he will be permitted to approach the ATMCD subject to the aforenoted direction given by the Apex Court.

¶22

Petition disposed of.

¶23

Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶24

INDERMEET KAUR, J

¶25

JANUARY 16, 2017 ndn

Brig. (Retired) Brij Mohan Khanna v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation (Sdmc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brig. (Retired) Brij Mohan Khanna v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation (Sdmc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek Vs Indira Gandhi National Open University & Ors.

Shubham Sharma Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs East Delhi Municipal Corproation and Ors.

Trivendra Singh Panwar Vs the Election Commission of India & Anr.

Indra Vikas Samiti & Anr. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ved Prakash Bhardwaj and Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

Shri Inder Pal Kalra Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Harish Bajaj and Anr. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs East Delhi Municipal Corproation and Ors.

Raj Mohan Singh Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Harish Kumar Vs Lt. Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Joginder Singh Wadhwa Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation

N S Sharma & Ors. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

R.C. Sibbal Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.