Dismissed

Dharmendar Kumar @ Dharmendra Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC20 Sept 2024W.P.(C)/8111/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus/writ petition regarding vending site allotment, the High Court of Delhi rejected the present application as not warranting consideration after a prior order addressed the petitioner's grievances. The Court held that the petitioner must file a separate petition if further remedies are required and disposed of the application.

What did the court decide?

The application is disposed of with direction for the applicant to file a separate petition if further remedies are required.

Dharmendar Kumar @ Dharmendra Gupta Vs Municipal… — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~71

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 8111/2024 & CM APPL. 25167/2025 DHARMENDAR KUMAR @ DHARMENDRA

¶4

GUPTA

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Aditya & Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advs. (M:8699723746)

¶7

versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS. ....Respondents Through: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, ASC, with Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich and Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay, Advs. for MCD.

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 29.04.2025

¶11

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 25167/2025 (for direction) in W.P.(C)-8111/2024

¶12

The present application has been filed on behalf of the Applicant/Petitioner– Mr. Dharmendar Kumar under Section 151, CPC, 1908, seeking directions to the Respondent– Municipal Corporation of Delhi to remove the unauthorized encroachment from the Tehbazari Site i.e., Site No. 26, Near 429 Bus Stop, DDA Flats, Kalkaji.

¶13

The issue raised in the present application has already been addressed in the order dated 20th September, 2024 passed by this Court. Relevant portion of the said order is extracted herein below:

¶14

“10. It is clear from the above that the MCD has not removed the petitioner from the vending site. The learned counsel for the MCD also confirms that the petitioner can carry on his vending activities at the said

¶15

This is a digitally signed order. 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 02/07/2025 at 00:21:51

¶16

site allotted to him, albeit, in accordance with law. 11. In view of the above, the petitioner’s grievance regarding the possession of the tehbazari site is concerned, it stands addressed. The MCD has neither cancelled the allotment of the tehbazari site nor removed the petitioner from the said site. The petition is, accordingly, allowed to carry on his vending activities, albeit, in accordance with law.

¶17

12. In so far as the petitioner’s grievance that certain unauthorised person from the locality interfering with the petitioner’s vending activity is concerned, this Court does not consider it apposite to pass any such order. There are no allegations that any person from the locality has dispossessed the petitioner from the said site. The petition is also bereft of the particulars in this regard. It does not provide names or particulars of any such person who are allegedly dispossessing the petitioner. They are also not parties to this petition. Needless to state that in the event of any unauthorised action by any other person, the petitioner would be entitled to avail his remedies in accordance with law.”

¶18

In light of the above stated order passed by this Court, the present

¶19

application does not warrant any consideration. The Applicant is permitted to avail of his remedies in accordance with law by filing a separate petition. 5. Application is disposed of in the said terms.

¶20

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J

¶21

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J

¶22

APRIL 29, 2025 dj/ss

¶23

Dharmendar Kumar @ Dharmendra Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendar Kumar @ Dharmendra Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and 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

Lalit Kumar & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi MCD and Ors.

Sudesh Chhikara Vs Principal District and Sessions Judge (West) Delhi and Another

Vineet Kumar Sharma Vs Northern Railway and Ors.

Iq City Medical College Vs National Medical Commission & Ors.

Dr. Ashoutosh Dev Kaushik Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sh. Akhtar Ali Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rekha Vs Union of India and Ors.

Solitaire Infrahome Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 15, Delhi & Anr.

Indu Parwanda Vs M/S. Cement Corporation of India

M/S Apn Sales and Marketing Vs Union of India & Anr.

Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited Vs Sales Tax Officer Class II / Avato & Anr.

The Management of Guru Harkrishan Public School and Ors. & Anr. Vs Sunil Sikri and Anr. & Anr.

MD Wazid Raza Vs Superintendent RANGE-108 Central Goods and Service Tax & Anr.

Mohd. Shahzad Vs New Delhi Municipal Council