Partly allowed

Zahir Ahmed v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Delhi HC18 Jul 2019W.P.(C)/4282/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order in three writ petitions addressed a plea for the petitioner to continue squatting. The court directed the Delhi Police to inspect and verify proposed alternate sites within one week and, subject to approval, facilitate the relocation of the squatters previously removed under Supreme Court directions.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued for Delhi Police to inspect sites within 7 days and issue NOC; SDMC to facilitate petitioner relocation upon NOC.

Zahir Ahmed Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signing Date:21.10.2024 16:56:28 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶2

¶3

W.P.(C) 4445/2019 & CM APPL. 19738/2019

¶4

AJAY KUMAR Petitioner

¶5

Through Mr. Akshay Ringe, Mr. Nitish Ojha, Ms. Shikha Goel, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶8

AND ANR. Respondent

¶9

Through Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate for R1 & 2/SDMC.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

¶12

¶13

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

¶14

ORDER

¶15

% 18.07.2019

¶16

The petitioners seek directions to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/SDMC to permit them to continue squatting at sites at Vikram Vihar, opposite Vikram Hotel and Lajpat Bhawan, on the footpath leading to L.S.R. College, New Delhi.

¶17

Ms. Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents states that the reply affidavits are ready. The same are taken on record. Copies thereof are handed over to the leamed counsel for the petitioners.

¶18

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/SDMC states that a petition (W.P.(C) 6459/19) asking for similar relief filed by Sh. Prem Singh, who was also squatting at the same site, was disposed- of on 31.05.2019. A copy of the said order has been enclosed with the reply affidavits handed over by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/SDMC and marked as Annexure-A. In

¶20

W.F.(C) 4277/2019, W.P.(C) 4282/2019 &W.P.(C) 4445/2019

page 2 of 5

o I .J r' -

the said order, the submission made by leamed eounsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/SDMC was recorded to the effect that removal action of the petitioner therein had been taken by the SDMC on the directions of the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court. It is submitted before us that same is the position in respect of the petitioners herein. They have also been removed on the directions of the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court. In all, 12 tehbazari holders were removed from the site in view of the directions given by the Monitoring Committee and none of them have been relocated so far.

¶25

The reason for their non-relocation offered by leamed counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/SDMC is that some sites were identified and communicated to the respondent No.3/Delhi Police in terms of a letter dated 02.05.2019 (Annexure-F colly), but the same were not found to be feasible by the Delhi Police. A fresh joint meeting was conducted by the officers of the SDMC and the Delhi Police only yesterday. It is stated that a letter dated 16.07.2019 had been addressed by the respondent Nos. 1 «&: 2/SDMC to the DCP Traffic, South District, New Delhi stating inter alia that the Department had identified two altemate sites (i) along with the wall of Nehm Place Bus Terminal in front of Fire Station on Service Road and (ii) along the wall of ESI Hospital, Okhla Phase-I, but a NOC in respect of the said sites is still awaited from the Delhi Police. 5. Leamed counsel for the respondent No. 3/Delhi Police states that they shall respond to said letter issued by the SDMC within two weeks and in case the sites in question are found to be in order, a NOC shall be issued

¶26

W.P.(C) 4277/2019, W.P.(C) 4282/2019 & W.P.(C) 4445/2019

¶27

page 3 of 5

¶28

within the same timeline.

¶29

In view of the submissions made here-in-above, the following

¶30

directions are issued: -

¶31

A > V vj-

¶32

(i) The respondent No. 3/Delhi Police shall inspect the sites identified by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/SDMC and conveyed to them vide letter dated 16.07.2019, within one week from today. (ii) If the aforesaid sites are found to be in order/hen a NOC shall be issued by the Delhi Police to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/SDMC within one week from the date of conducting the site inspection.

¶33

(iii) Immediately on receiving the NOC in respect of the aforesaid sites in question, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/SDMC shall communicate the same to the petitioners herein, along with the site plan.

¶34

(iv) In the event, the sites proposed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/SDMC in the letter dated 16.07.2019 are turned down by the Delhi Police for any reason, then a fresh Joint Meeting shall be conducted by the SDMC and the Delhi Police within two weeks from the date of rejection and the proposed alternate sites shall be identified for issuance of a NOC, to enable the petitioners to be relocated there at the earliest.

¶35

W.P.(C) 4277/2019, W.R(C) 4282/2019 & W.P.(C) 4445/2019

¶36

page 4 of 5

¶37

¶38

The petitions are disposed of along with the pending applications.

HIMA KOHLI, J

ASHA MENON, J

JULY 18, 2019/MK

fV.F.(CJ 4277/2019, W.P.(C) 4282/2019 & W.P.(C) 4445/2019

¶43

page 5 of 5

Zahir Ahmed v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zahir Ahmed v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Vs the Divisional Railway Manager Northern Railway & Ors.

Surender (Ex. Constable) Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gama Infraprop. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Dayalbagh Educational Institute Vs University Grants Commission (Ugc) and Ors.

Well Protect Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gtb Hospital and Anr.

Navdurga Builders & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Well Protect Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Lok Nayak Hospital and Anr.

Kewal Krishan Kumar Vs Sameer Bhutani

Kewal Krishan Kumar Vs Rajeev Kumar Batra

Paavani Gupta Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Smt. Susheela Devi Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Ajay Kumar Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Shri Vinod Kumar Madan Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.