Dismissed

Gopal Bharadwaj v. East Delhi Municipal Corporaton & Ors.

Delhi HC7 Jan 2019W.P.(C)/6531/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner withdrew writ petition seeking demolition of unauthorised construction as he sought to intervene in parallel appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD, where opposing party claimed coercive steps were already stayed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to intervene in pending Tribunal proceedings only to adduce additional facts not brought before the Tribunal by respondents.

Gopal Bharadwaj Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporaton & Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~48

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6531/2018 & CM Nos.24950-51/2018, 149-150/2019

¶4

GOPAL BHARADWAJ` ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Satinder & Mr.Nirmal Kumar, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATON & ORS.

¶7

	..... Respondents
Through:	Mr.Ravinder Kr. Yadav &
	Mr.Vinayak Sharma, Advs. for R-1 & 2.
	Mr.Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with counsel
	for the respondent no.4.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

¶9

O R D E R % 07.01.2019

¶10

Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent no.1 to demolish the alleged unauthorised construction being carried out by the respondent no.4 at Plot Nos.155A, 155B and 156A, Patparganj, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi.

¶11

At the outset, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.4 states that being aggrieved by the coercive steps being taken by the respondent no.1 qua his property including sealing and demolition of some portions thereof, the respondent no.4 has already approached the Appellate Tribunal, MCD by way of an appeal No.477/2018

¶12

which is listed along with connected appeals filed by similarly placed persons. He further submits that vide order dated 02.11.2018, the learned Tribunal has directed the respondent no.1/MCD not to take any coercive action in respect of the respondent no.4’s property and, therefore, states that the present petition is not maintainable since the Tribunal is already seized of the matter. The said stand is reiterated by learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, who is present in Court, does not press the present petition. He however, states that since according to his instructions, the respondent nos.1 and 2 have not brought out complete facts before the Tribunal, the petitioner may be permitted to intervene in the pending proceedings before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents do not oppose the aforesaid course of action.

¶14

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn along with the pending applications with liberty to the petitioner to seek intervention before the Tribunal only in order to bring on record any additional facts which may not have been brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶15

REKHA PALLI, J

¶16

JANUARY 07, 2019 gm

Gopal Bharadwaj v. East Delhi Municipal Corporaton & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Bharadwaj v. East Delhi Municipal Corporaton & 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

Moet Hennessy India Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Special Range - 6, New Delhi

Moet Hennessy India Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Special RANGE-6, New Delhi

Moet Hennessy India Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Special Range - 6, New Delhi

Sheetal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sukhbir Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dr. (Ms.) Banti M. Singh Vs University of Delhi and Anr.

Bipin Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Hemant Verma @ Hemant Gogna Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Dharminder Dutt Sharma Vs Sri Ruwalu @ Relu Ram and Anr.

Mohd Azhar Javed Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Prem Nath Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Ajay Agarwal Vs Jhang Co. Operative Group Houseing Society Ltd. and Ors.

Arvind Singh Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Maruti Suzuki India Limited Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.