Dismissed

Deepak Kumar v. South Delhi Municipal Corp. & Ors.

Delhi HC3 Feb 2020W.P.(C)/464/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the filing as a blackmailing writ petition and not a valid Public Interest Litigation. The court held that without joining owners/occupiers, demolition cannot be ordered and annexures are insufficient to decide legality.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 directed to be deposited with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority.

Deepak Kumar Vs South Delhi Municipal Corp. & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2020)

¶1

$~9

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 03.02.2020

¶4

W.P.(C) 464/2017 DEEPAK KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. M. Hussain, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORP. & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Nikhil Goel, Standing Counsel with Mr. Dushyant Sarna & Mr. P. Jaimon, Advs. for SDMC

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

¶8

JUDGMENT

¶9

D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)

¶10

This so-called Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with the following prayers:

¶11

“i) Directing the respondents to enquire into the matter and ensure that their officials must act as per law, bye-laws of Municipal Corporation and Rules made there-under; ii) The conduct of the officials of the respondents be enquired into/probed and if found guilty, they be punished according to law for colluding and conniving with unscrupulous builders and owner;

¶12

iii) Pass any other order(s)/direction(s) as deemed fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶13

W.P.(C) 464/2017 Page 1 of 3

¶14

We have heard the learned counsel for both sides. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this is not a Public Interest Litigation at all but in fact a blackmailing type of litigation.

¶15

It appears that petitioner is in search of demolition of the properties which are referred to in para 4 of this writ petition. For ready reference para 4 reads as under:

¶16

“4. That the petitioner in response to his RTI application was informed that the property No.23/77, West Punjabi Bagh had been booked for unauthorized construction in shape of dividing one property and after being booked since 2005 and property No.23A/77, West Punjabi Bagh had been found unauthorized, but no action had been taken by the respondents till date. Similarly, property No.44/42, West Punjabi Bagh is booked vide File No. EE[B-1] WZ/UC/14/314 dated 15.07.2015 for unauthorized construction in shape of alteration by removing walls in basement and ground floor in old and existing building, but no action has been taken because the lower staff of respondents are hands in gloves with the owners. Similarly, the property No.33, West Punjabi Bagh which had been booked for unauthorized construction vide file No.EE[B-l] WZ/UC/14/345 dated 15.07.2014 and the property No.33/72, West Punjabi Bagh which had been booked for unauthorized construction vide file No.EE [B-1] WZ/UC/14/313 dated 15.07.2015.”

¶17

Thus, the petitioner is in search of an order or direction upon respondents for demolition of the aforesaid properties without even joining the owners/occupiers as party/respondents. We are of the considered view that without joining them as party/respondents, no such prayer can be granted by this Court. Moreover, legality or otherwise of the constructions cannot be decided in a writ petition on the basis of annexures. To establish W.P.(C) 464/2017 Page 2 of 3

¶18

legality or otherwise of the constructions, cogent and convincing evidences are required to be led before the concerned Trial Court and that too after joining the concerned owners/occupiers of the premises/superstructures as a party/respondents/defendants in the proceedings.

¶19

In view of the above facts, in our view, this is a blackmailing type of writ petition and an abuse of the process of law which ought to be stopped. We, therefore, dismiss this writ petition with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to be deposited with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority within a period of six weeks from today. This amount shall be utilized towards the programme “Access to Justice”.

¶20

A copy of this order shall be sent to the Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority, Central Office, Patiala House Courts Complex, New Delhi – 110001.

¶21

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶23

FEBRUARY 03, 2020 ns

¶24

W.P.(C) 464/2017 Page 3 of 3

Deepak Kumar v. South Delhi Municipal Corp. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar v. South Delhi Municipal Corp. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shyamo Devi Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Dayanand Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Rajeev and Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Dewan Chand Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Mohammad Ikhalaque Vs Uioin of India & Ors.

Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain Vs Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Anr.

Jai Shankar Kirpa Mahavidhyalaya Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Madhulata Mallick Vs New Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc) and Ors.

Dilshad Bux Vs Shabnam Bagum

Shri Anand Kumar Rana and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Delhi Labour Union Vs Union of India

Iqbal Chauhan Vs Social & Tinur Restaurant Thr Satyajit Dhingra & Ors.

M/S J. P. Impex Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex and Ors.

Pankaj Sharma Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.