In a writ petition, the petitioner was unrepresented. The learned counsel for the first respondent stated that the respondent had taken appropriate action. The petition was dismissed in default for non-prosecution.
The petition was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.
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.
$~27
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI (NORTH) AND ORS
..... Respondent Through Mr.Mukesh Gupta, S.C with Mr.Sanjay, Advs for R-1. Mr.Mohd.Sajid, Adv for R-2. Mr.Raghvendra Pandey, Adv for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
O R D E R
% 16.01.2019
None appears for the petitioner, the same was the position on the last two dates.
At this stage, Mr.Mukesh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 hands over a copy of the status report, which is taken on record. By placing reliance on the status report, Mr. Gupta states that the respondent no.1 has already taken appropriate action in accordance with law and, in fact, some of the unauthorised construction in the property in question already stands demolished.
In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent, it appears that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the present petition any further.
The petition is dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.
REKHA PALLI, J
JANUARY 16, 2019 sr
Shagufta Begum
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (North)
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
