Dismissed

Ajay Dubey v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC13 Jan 2020W.P.(C)/7856/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner challenged alleged illegal construction by NBCC on land around Purana Qila. The Chief Justice held that the legality of government construction requires subjective evidence best addressed in a suit. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and connected CM application dismissed. No direction to restore land or halt construction granted.

Ajay Dubey Vs Union of India & Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Delhi HC (2020)

¶1

$~13

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 13^th January, 2020

¶4

- W.P.(C) 7856/2018 and CM No. 30143/2018

¶5

AJAY DUBEY ..... Petitioner

¶6

Through: Ms. Sugandha Anand, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents

¶9

Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Central Government Standing Counsel with

¶10

Mr. T.P. Singh, Adv. for R-1, 2, 5 and 10

¶11

Ms. Vaishali Goyal, Adv. for R-3

¶12

Mr. Rahul Sharma and Mr. C.K. Bhatt, Advs. for R-4/National Zoological Park

¶13

Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Standing Counel-DDA with Mr. Jagdeep Kr. Sharma, Additional Standing Counsel-DDA and Ms. Nazia Parveen, Adv.

¶14

Ms. Richa Dhawan, Standing Counsel-South Delhi Municipal Corporation/R-7

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R % 13.01.2020

¶17

W.P.(C) 7856/2018

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) W.P.(C) 7856/2018

¶20

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

¶21

“a) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Respondent No. 3 from carrying out the illegal construction undertaken by Respondent No. 3 (NBCC) on land measuring 6.106 acres of Pocket ''B" in the area around Bhairon temple (the land in question) and Dudhiya Bhairon Temple behind Purana Qila and Pocket "C" approximate 14 acre i.e. lake and, park left hand side in front of Purana Qila, New Delhi in collusion with the Respondent No. 2 (ASI) on the land around Purana Qila

¶22

b) Direct the Respondent No. 2 & 3 to demolish the illegal structure constructed on the land as mentioned in prayer (a)

¶23

c) direct the Respondent No.3 and Respondent No. 2 (ASI) to restore the said land as described in prayer (a) as green and make sure that it is in the same condition when it was handed over to the Respondent No. 2 (ASI) on an "as is where is" basis

¶24

d) Direct the Respondent No. 5 to handover the said land as described in prayer (a) back to the Respondent No. 2 (ASI)

¶25

e) Direct tine Respondents not to raise any constructions in future in the green area as described in prayer (a) and also around the National Zoological Park and Purana Qila

¶26

W.P.(C) 7856/2018

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

f) Pass any other writ, order or direction this court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.”

¶29

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the main grievance of the petitioner is about so-called illegal construction activity, carried out by the respondent no.3 i.e. National Building Construction Company (NBCC) at the place which is mentioned hereinabove.

¶30

Respondent no. 3 is a Government undertaking. The legality or otherwise of a construction cannot be decided in a writ petition. Instead, it requires cogent and convincing evidences to be laid before the Trial Court. Several factual aspects might have been involved in this case which need to be established by this petitioner before labeling the construction in question as illegal construction. In such type of cases, with regard to grievances made about the illegal construction, the best remedy available is to file a suit.

¶31

Hence, we see no reason to entertain this Public Interest Litigation and the same is therefore dismissed.

¶32

CM No. 30143/2018

¶33

In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, this application also stands disposed of.

¶34

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶35

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶36

JANUARY 13, 2020/ kr

¶37

W.P.(C) 7856/2018

¶38

Page 3 of 3

Ajay Dubey v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Dubey v. Union of India & 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

Delhi Sainik Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd.(Regd.) and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Abid Khan Vs Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Wahid Deen Mohammad Shaikh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sunil Kumar Bakshi Vs Dsidc Limited through Its Managing Director & Anr.

Yogish S Katagihallimath Vs Air India Limited & Ors.

Vignesh Sangaran Vs Air India Limited and Ors.

Rijul Arora Vs Air India Limited and Ors.

Richa Agarwal Vs Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-24,N.DELHI & Ors.

Sunder Bidhuri Vs Union of India & Ors.

Delhi Public School Society Vs Delhi Public School Ghaziabad Society & Ors.

Naima Pallabi Vs Department of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.

Gaurav Kumar Bansal Vs Union of India and Anr.

Hans Raj Jain Vs Election Commission of India

Raja Aederi Consultants Private Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.