Disposed

Salek Chand v. MCD and Ors.

Delhi HC19 Apr 2018W.P.(C)/9525/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Respondents in a writ petition were allowed to intervene in a pending administrative tribunal matter. The Court permitted the petitioner to connect to a respondent's water tank for supply and to remove loose asbestos sheets from the ground floor courtyard, noting no opinion was expressed on the merits of the main petition.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to connect the water tank and remove loose asbestos sheets; liberty granted for intervention in related ATMCD appeal.

Salek Chand Vs MCD and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~44

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9525/2017, CM No. 38732/2017 SALEK CHAND ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay K. Chadha, Adv. versus

¶4

MCD AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. for R1 Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Mr. Dallavi S. Kansal and Mr. Deepak Pandey, Advs. for R2 to R4

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO O R D E R

¶6

% 19.04.2018

¶7

Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Advocate states, vakalatnama shall be filed by

¶8

him on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 during the course of the day. His

¶9

statement is taken on record.

¶10

CM No. 38732/2017

¶11

This is an application filed by petitioner with the following prayers:

¶12

“In view of above facts and circumstances of case, it is therefore most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

¶13

a) Direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to install the water tank over the roof of the Premises/Unauthorised Premises or any other suitable place of the building, as interim measure till the final disposal of the present petition;

¶14

b) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the present case may require; and.”

¶15

Mr. Saurabh Kansal states, respondents are the residents of second

¶16

and third floors of BD 32-B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. He has filed three photographs to contend that the green colour tank on the terrace has been placed by the respondent No.2 to 4 for the benefit of the petitioner. He also states that the petitioner can connect the said tank to his floor for supply of water.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed to the submission made by Mr. Kansal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, except that the respondents must allow the access of the petitioner to the tank for maintenance. Mr. Saurabh Kansal is agreeable to the said submission.

¶18

In view of the above, it is directed, the petitioner can connect the green colour water tank on the terrace to his floor for supply of water. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall also allow the access of the petitioner to the tank for maintenance. The application stands disposed of.

¶19

W.P.(C) 9525/2017

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 state that they have filed an Appeal bearing No. 223/2015 before ATMCD, and the next date of hearing is July 06, 2018.

¶21

If that be so, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an application for

¶22

intervention. If such an application is filed the same shall be considered favourably. I take the submission by Mr. Saurabh Kansal on record that if such an application is filed, respondents 2 to 4 shall not oppose the same.

¶23

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to two photographs at pages 25 and 26 which shows asbestos sheets have covered the front court yard of the ground floor. The petitioner seeks to remove the said asbestos sheets, as according to him, the same have become loose and may fall down causing injuries. Mr. Saurabh Kansal has no objection if the petitioner removes the same.

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of. Suffice to state, this Court has not

¶25

expressed any opinion on the merit of the controversy pending adjudication before the ATMCD.

¶26

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶27

APRIL 19, 2018 /aky

Salek Chand v. MCD and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salek Chand v. MCD and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeraj Kumar & Ors. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Ravin Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sher Noble Manav Vs Union of India & Anr.

Lata Lochav Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Shri Balram Yadav and Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

T.C. Jindgar Vs Rural Electrification Corporation

Mahender Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Manoj Kumar Vs Sangeet Natak Akademi and Ors.

M/S Raghav Industrial Products Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

Ms. Chandrayi Basuthakur Vs State and Ors.

Smt. Meera Sharma and Anr. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Manjeet Singh Vs Bses (Rpl) & Ors.

Ramesh Chand Vs State of NCT and Ors.

Ramesh Chand Vs Manish Gupta & Ors.