Disposed

Panchshila Cooperative House v. South Dlehi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Delhi HC9 Jul 2019W.P.(C)/8131/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi disposed of a writ petition filed by a cooperative society seeking removal of an unauthorized tea stall. Finding no defense from the stall operator and confirming the lack of a valid license or right to squat, the Court directed the Municipal Corporation to remove the encrocher within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Respondent Municipal Corporation to take appropriate action to remove the illegal encroachment within four weeks of the judgment.

Panchshila Cooperative House Vs South Dlehi… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 8131/2018 PANCHSHILA COOPERATIVE HOUSE ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Ashim Shidhar, Advocate.

¶4

versus

¶5

SOUTH DLEHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR ..... Respondent Through Ms. Monika Arora, Advocate with Mr. Kushal Kumar, Advocate for R1/SDMC. Ms. Kriti Kumar, proxy counsel for R2.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MS . JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS . JUSTICE ASHA MENON O R D E R

¶8

% 09 . 07 . 2019

¶9

The petitioner/society has filed the present petition praying inter alia for issuance of directions to the respondent no.1/SDMC to remove an unauthorized tea stall that is being run by the respondent no. 2 from next to a wall near S-Block, Mother Dairy, Panchsheel Park, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.

¶10

We have perused the Status Report filed by the respondent no.1/SDMC wherein it is stated that the respondent no. 2 is neither a valid tehbazari holder nor an eligible squatter and is presently selling of vegetables/fruit from the site in question. Earlier hereto, the respondent no. 2 W.P.(C) 8131/2018 page 1 of 4

¶11

was running the trade of food/tea stall and selling snacks items from the same site by using a gas cylinder and the SDMC had removed the said encroachment. Aggrieved by the said removal action, the respondent no. 2 had filed a writ petition in the High Court registered as W.P.(C) 8133/2017, that was disposed of vide order dated 17.05.2018, copy whereof is annexed to the present petition and marked as Annexure-P4. In the captioned petition, learned counsel for the respondent no.1/SDMC had stated before the Court that the petitioner therein (the respondent no. 2 herein) was found cooking food at the site in question by using a gas cylinder, which is not permitted under the rules of tehbazari and therefore, he had been removed from the said site. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner therein had stated on instructions from his client that he was willing to submit an undertaking that he will not use the gas cylinder. Prior to 17.05.2018, on 14.03.2018, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 herein had submitted before the Court that his client would take steps not to obstruct the free flow of the traffic in the area.

¶12

Noting that primarily, the petitioner in W.P.(C) 8133/2017 was aggrieved by the action of the local police who as per him, was continuing to harass him and not by the officers of the respondent no.1/SDMC, the Division Bench had recorded the submission made by the counsel for the Delhi Police to the effect that the local police will not harass the petitioner as long as he complies with the orders passed and does not violate the undertakings given by him in the Court. In the light of the said submission, the writ petition was disposed of.

¶13

W.P.(C) 8131/2018

¶14

page 2 of 4

¶15

In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent no.1/SDMC that to the best of her understanding, a counter affidavit/status report was filed by the SDMC in the caption petition, we have summoned the records from the Registry. In the status report filed by the respondent/SDMC in the captioned petition, it was averred that the petitioner therein (respondent no. 2 herein) is merely an encroacher, that he is neither a tehbazari holder, nor an eligible squatter and is carrying out his alleged trade of chai (tea booth) and other edible items i.e. snacks by using a gas cylinder at the site in question in an illegal manner and without any authority. Thus the stand of the SDMC in W.P.(C) No. 8133/2017 was that the site in question is not approved for tehbazari and squatting at the site is impermissible as per their record.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1/SDMC submits that she has instructions to state that the department shall carry out a drive to remove encroachments in the area in question at the earliest and since the respondent no. 2 does not have a valid tehbazari license and is an unauthorized squatter, necessary steps shall be taken to free the area in question from encroachment.

¶17

We may note here that though the respondent no. 2 had entered appearance in this petition through a counsel on 18.02.2019 and on 26.02.2019 and time was granted to him to file the counter affidavit, no counter affidavit has been filed so far. In fact, counsel for the respondent no.2 did not even appear on the last date. Today, the matter had to be passed on the first call to await the presence of the counsel for the respondent no. 2. W.P.(C) 8131/2018 page 3 of 4

¶18

On the second call, Ms. Kriti, proxy counsel appears for the counsel for the respondent no. 2 and states that the arguing counsel is not in town. In that event, alternate arrangements ought to have been made by the counsel for the respondent no. 2 knowing very well that no steps had been taken to file a counter affidavit. The matter was ripe for arguments. The respondent no. 2 has neither filed a counter affidavit nor any document to substantiate his stand that he is a licenced tehbazari holder under the respondent No.1/SDMC has been authorized to squat at the site in question.

¶19

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/SDMC as recorded above, the present petition is disposed of while issuing directions to the SDMC to take the appropriate action to remove the illegal encroachment pointed out by petitioner/Society in accordance with law, within four weeks from today.

¶20

The petition is disposed of.

HIMA KOHLI, J

ASHA MENON, J

JULY 09, 2019/MK

page 4 of 4

W.P.(C) 8131/2018

Panchshila Cooperative House v. South Dlehi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchshila Cooperative House v. South Dlehi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

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

Malini Hoon Vs State Government of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Sanjay Dewan Vs Licensing Authority and Anr.

Athar Zia Vs Bank of India & Ors.

Pul Bangash Rani Jhansi Road Welfare Association Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shri Pooran Singh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Damanjit Kaur Vs Union of India

Sandeep Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Inditex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Tangirala Srinivasa Gangadhara Baladitya Vs Sanjay Aggarwal, Sole Arbitrator & Ors.

Saptahik Merchant Wefare Association (Registered) through Its President Sh. a. D. Dehlvi Vs the North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Mr. v. v. Pankajakshan Nair and Anr. Vs the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Ors.

Hemant Aggarwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Subhash Khandelwal Vs Rachna

Wintere Games Federation of India Vs Indian Olympics Association & Anr.