Petition challenging construction regularisation order. Respondent provided undertaking to use appropriate covering during construction. Petitioner withdrew petition.
Undertaking to comply with regulations was accepted; petition was disposed of.
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.
$~73
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajjay Arora, Advocate with Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocate for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Harish Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajender Agarwal, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. Mr. Anjum Javed, ASC with Mr. Devendra Kumar and Mr. Faran Ahmed, Advocates for Respondent No. 3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL O R D E R % 03.10.2018
Mr. Harish Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 invites my attention to a communication dated 04.09.2018, addressed by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation to the said respondent, in relation to his application for regularisation of the existing construction at property bearing no. 112-113 , Gautam Nagar, New Delhi.
A perusal of the same reflects that, upon depositing the requisite charge with the department vide receipt No. 097722 dated
24.08.2018, the subject property has been regularised, insofar as, the existing property structure is concerned.
It further reflects that, subject upon the completion of the construction activities; the respondent no. 2 is required to submit a report of completion/occupancy certificate, as per the prevailing norms contained under UBBL 2016/MPD 2021, in accordance with law.
The solitary grievance articulated on behalf of the petitioner, is to the effect that, the respondent no. 2 is not employing appropriate covering, to carry out the subject construction.
Mr. Harish Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2, on instructions from the latter, who is present in Court today, undertakes to comply with the regulations, in relation to covering the subject property, whilst completing construction therein, in accordance with law.
The undertaking given on behalf of the respondent No. 2 is hereby accepted. The Respondent No. 2 is directed to comply with the same without demur.
In view of the foregoing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not press this petition any further.
The petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
Dasti.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
OCTOBER 03, 2018/ p’ma
Ms. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.
South Delhi Municipal Corporation
Siddharth Mridul
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
