Disposed

Shyam Sunder Aggarwal v. Central Vigilance Commission & Ors.

Delhi HC22 Aug 2024W.P.(C)/11560/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction for disposal of a corruption complaint filed against officating authorities in Delhi regarding encroachment of public land. The Court directed respondents to consider and dispose of the complaint in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondents 1 to 3 to consider and dispose of the Petitioner's complaint dated 22.04.2024 in accordance with law.

Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs Central Vigilance Commission & Ors. — Corruption | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~71

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11560/2024, CM APPL. 48005/2024 SHYAM SUNDER AGGARWAL .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Puneet Goel, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION & ORS. .....Respondents

¶7

Through: Ms. Tatini Basu, SC for R-1. Ms. Tajinder Virdi, SC for MCD.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 22.08.2024

¶11

The present petition seeks direction to Respondents No. 1 to 3 to dispose of Petitioner’s complaint dated 22^nd April, 2024, wherein he has highlighted alleged corrupt practices of Respondent No. 4/ Deputy Commissioner (Shahdara South Zone) in encroachment of public land.

¶12

Counsel for Petitioner presents the following facts and contentions:

¶13

2.1. The Petitioner has served as a Mayor of East Delhi Municipal Corporation from 16^th June, 2021 till June, 2022. During his tenure, he noticed encroachment on the public land adjacent to property bearing no. X/1242/A/1, Plot No. B-1, Gali No. 1, Rajgarh Colony, Delhi-110031.¹

¶14

2.2. The owner of the said property, in connivance with Respondent No. 4, Area JE, AE and Executive Engineer allowed encroachment on the subject property. Thereafter, construction on the said property commenced and comprises of a three storeyed building.

¶15

1 “the subject property”

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/08/2024 at 11:47:31

¶18

2.3. On 22^nd April, 2024, Petitioner filed a complaint to Respondent No. 1/ Central Vigilance Commission,² regarding the corrupt practices of the officials involved in the said encroachment. However, no action has been taken till date.

¶19

2.4 By not conducting thorough vigilance enquiry, the CVC is in dereliction of its statutory duty provided under Section 8(d) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.

¶20

Per contra, Ms. Tatini Basu, counsel for CVC states that the complaint received from Petitioner has been allocated a complaint number and is under active consideration.

¶21

Ms. Tajinder Virdi, counsel for Municipal Corporation of Delhi,³ submits that much prior to the Petitioner’s complaint, the MCD has already acted and booked the unauthorised construction on the subject property and are currently in the process of taking appropriate action, in accordance with law.

¶22

In light of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that the Respondents No. 1 to 3 shall consider and dispose of the Petitioner’s complaint dated 22^nd April, 2024, in accordance with law and inform the outcome of such enquiry to the Petitioner.

¶23

The Court has not made any comments on the merits of the case. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶24

Disposed of.

¶25

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶26

AUGUST 22, 2024/ nk

¶27

2 “CVC”

¶28

3 “MCD”

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/08/2024 at 11:47:31

Shyam Sunder Aggarwal v. Central Vigilance Commission & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sunder Aggarwal v. Central Vigilance Commission & 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

M/S Mj Bizcrafts LLP (through Its Partner Sh. Rajender Kumar) Vs Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate (through Its Commissioner) & Ors.

Rajesh Adhikari and Ors. Vs Sashastra Seema Bal and Anr.

Kunal Khatumaria Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) and Ors.

Shri Nath Kushwaha & Ors. Vs Braham Swaroop Sharma & Ors.

Prayag Polytech Private Limited & Anr. Vs Canara Bank

Central Government Welfare Housing Organization Cgewho Vs Inder Jit Singh Ahuja

Mohd. Rashid Vs Union of India & Anr.

Anil Kumar Sinha and Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Sunil Agarwal and Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private Limited Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Tridibes Basu Vs the Disciplinary Committee, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Ors.

Shri Kamlesh Khantwal & Anr. Vs the Competent Authority and Administrator Safem Fop a and Ndps

Homes of the Indian Nation Vs Union of India

Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.