Disposed

Ravinder Tyagi v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC2 Apr 2024W.P.(C)/4708/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed W.P. alleging removal of 23 peepal trees and illegal construction by MCD contrary to a 2018 undertaking. Court treated petition as representation to be decided by Deputy Commissioner with a hearing within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Deputy Commissioner to treat the petition as a representation, decide it by reasoned order after hearing within four weeks.

Ravinder Tyagi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~36

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4708/2024 & C.M.No.19283/2024

¶4

RAVINDER TYAGI ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Petitioner in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR

¶8

..... Respondents

¶9

Through: Mr.Nikhil Palli, Advocate for MCD.

¶10

% Date of Decision: 02^nd April, 2024

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)

¶14

Present public interest litigation has been filed with the following

¶15

prayers:-

¶16

i) A Writ/direction may kindly be issued against the respondents, thereby directing the respondents to undo I replant 23 trees existed Lowards Eastern Side of Gandhi Maidan Parking, H.C. Sen Road, Delhi;

¶17

ii) The respondent no.2 may please be directed to remove the construction whatsoever has been raised upon the space vacated by Bapu Market (149 Teh Bazari holders) and the space behind the Bapu Market where 23 Peepal trees were existing but have been removed/up-rooted by the respondent no.2.

¶18

iii) The respondent no. 2 may please be directed to remove the iron grill affixed on the side pavement and also may please be directed to remove the Barricades put on H.C. Sen Road, Chandni Chowk, Delhi- 110006, and the respondent no.2

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:02:22

¶21

Page 1 of 3

¶22

W.P.(C) 4708/2024

¶23

may please be further restrained not to use the space in between the Iron Grill affixed on the Side Pavement and the Barricades for parking the vehicles by its staff;

¶24

iv) May pass any other or further order(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

¶25

The petitioner, who appears in person, states that respondent no. 2 in connivance with respondent no. 1 has cut/ removed 23 peepal trees existing between the entry gate and exit gate of Gandhi Maidan Car Parking towards Eastern Side. He further alleges that respondent no. 2 has illegally encroached the side pavement and merged the pavement in the alleged space occupied by Omaxe Mall. He also avers that respondent no. 2 has affixed iron grills on the side pavements and put barricades around the area in question for the purpose of parking cars belonging to the staff, which is thereby causing inconvenience to the public at large.

¶26

He emphasises states that in order dated 30^th August, 2018 passed by this Court in the W.P.(C) 4572/2007, the Court had recorded the statement of the then Deputy Commissioner of Delhi Municipal Corporation to the effect that 65 trees existing outside/around the proposed Multi-Level Car Parking at Gandhi Maidan, H.C. Sen Road, Delhi-110006 are not proposed to be cut for the purposes of re-development of Gandhi Maidan Parking, as these are not a part of re-development.

¶27

From the perusal of the paper book, it transpires that the petitioner has not given any prior notice to any of the respondents before filing the present writ petition. The petitioner has also not obtained under RTI any sanction plan of the project in question from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’). From the photographs placed on record, this Court is not able to make out at this stage that 23 peepal trees have been cut for construction of

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:02:22

¶30

Page 2 of 3

¶31

W.P.(C) 4708/2024

¶32

the project contrary to the undertaking given by the MCD on 30^th August, 2018.

¶33

However, as the issue raised by the petitioner in the present matter is an important one, this Court disposes of the present writ petition along with the application with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, City Sadar Phar Ganj Zone, MCD to treat the present writ petition as a representation and to decide the same by way of a reasoned order in accordance with law within four weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the event the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he shall be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

¶34

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶35

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶36

APRIL 2, 2024 KA

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:03.04.2024 19:02:22

¶39

Page 3 of 3

¶40

W.P.(C) 4708/2024

Ravinder Tyagi v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Tyagi v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Swami Samarth Engineers Ltd. Vs National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited

Evalueserve Com Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1) Delhi &Ors

Naveen Kumar Vs Muncipal Corporation Delhi Adn Anr.

Vicky and Anr. Vs Muncipal Corporation Delhi and Anr.

Susheel Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Ankit Agarwal -Legal Heir of Late Shanti Kumar Aggarwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Ankit Agarwal -Legal Heir of Late Shanti Kumar Aggarwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Sunoj Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Surjit Singh Yadav Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shah Caters Vs Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital & Anr.

Theme Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Highways Authority of India

Pritam Singh Vs the Registrar Cooperative Socities & Anr.

Pet Lovers Association (Regd.) Vs Union of India and Anr.

Express Food Services Vs Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation