The High Court of Delhi dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn by the petitioner, who stated the grievance became infructuous due to action initiated by the respondents against illegal construction.
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.
$~36
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS
..... Respondents Through: Mr.Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel with Ms.Shashi Gupta & Mr.Sanjay Baniwal, Adv. for R-1. Mr.Jawahar Raja, ASC with Mr.Chinmay Kanojia, Adv. for R-2. Ms.Divya, Adv. for R-3 & 4.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
O R D E R
% 10.01.2019
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the respondent nos.1 and 2 have already initiated action in respect of the illegal construction at the site in question, the grievance of the petitioner no longer subsists. He, therefore, states that he has instructions from the petitioner, who is present in Court, to withdraw the present petition as having become infructuous.
The petition is therefore, dismissed as withdrawn.
C.M. Nos.827-829/2019
In view of the writ petition being dismissed as withdrawn,
learned counsel for the applicants does not press the present applications. She however, states that the applicant will take appropriate steps before the Appellate Tribunal MCD in accordance with law.
The applications are dismissed as not pressed.
REKHA PALLI, J JANUARY 10, 2019 gm
Intsarul Haq
South Delhi Municipal Corporation
Rekha Palli
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
