W.P.(C)/916/2018 of MR. SANDEEP GARG AND ANR. Vs NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

$-21 &22

*IN THE HIGHCOURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 915/2018, CM No. 3836/2018MR. SANDEEP GARG AND ANR.

PetitionerThrough:Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, Adv. withMs. Leeza Taneja, Adv.

versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

RespondentThrough:Ms. Mini Pushkama, SC for NorthDMC with Ms. Swagata Bhuyan,Ms. Shiva Pandey & Ms. Neha Goel,Advs.Mr. Ajay Verma, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms. Ruhi Chopra &Mr. Sumit Mishra, Advs.Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Adv. for DJBwith Mr. Ram Sawrop, A.E AND ANR. ANR.PetitionerThrough:Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, Adv. withMs. Leeza Taneja, Adv.

+W.P.(C) 916/2018, CM No. 3838/2018MR. SANDEEP GARG AND ANR. ANR.MR. SANDEEP GARG AND ANR. ANR.

versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

RespondentThrough:Ms. Mini Pushkarna, SC for NorthDMC with Ms. Swagata Bhuyan,Ms. Shiva Pandey & Ms. Neha Goel,Advs.Mr. Ajay Verma, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms. Ruhi Chopra &Mr. Sumit Mishra, Advs.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally SignedBy:AMULYA

CORAM;HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. ICAMESWAR RAOORDER%29.10.2018

1.Petitioners have filed these writ petitions and the prayers made in the

writ petitions read as under

"W.P.(C) 915/2018cfe W.PJC) 916/2018

ItisthereforemostrespectfullyprayedthatthisHon 'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:i)issue the writ ofcertiorari and/or any other appropriatewrit order(s) or direction(s) thereby quashing the impugnedOrderdated07.12.2017passedbytherespondent,directing the sealing ofthe premises ofthe petitioner, andii)to issuetheWrit of Mandamusand/orany otherappropriate writ, order(s) or direction(s) thereby directingthe Respondent NDMC to de-seal the property of thepetitioners.

Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit andproper in the facts and circumstances of the case and mayalso be granted infavour of the petitioners and against therespondent."

2.As far as challengeto the impugnedorder dated December 07, 2017 is

concerned, it was considered in the order passed on February 06, 2018 andin para 9 with respect to the same, the following undertaking of the

undertaking of the petitioners reads as under:-

"1. That I am one of the Petitioners in the above petitionand I am well conversant with thefacts of the present caseand competent to swear this undertaking.

2.That the premises in question is owned by me, alongwith my wife.We have not used the premises for theIndustrial purpose and the tenant was using the same as agodown. I undertake to not to use the same for IndustrialPurpose and/or for any purpose, in violation of the orderspassed by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court, the National GreenTribunaland this Hon'bleCourt.The premiseswasvacated by the Tenant and the same is lying vacant. "

3.The petitioners stand by the aforesaid undertaking and in view of theundertaking given, the property has been de-sealed. That being so, as far asprayer Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the same stand rendered infructuous inview of the undertaking given by the petitioners and de-sealing of theproperty by the respondents. Further, petitioners are directed to abide by theundertakingand in case there is any violationof the undertaking,respondents are free to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

4.As far as further directions with regard to the change of user of theVillage Haidarpur is concerned, from the counter affidavit filed by DDA, we

find that for the present,thereis no such proposaland it would dependuponvarious eventualities, which could happen in future, as indicated in thecounter affidavit. As they are not the subjectmatter of the prayers made inthe writ petitions,we neednot dwellinto all these aspectsin this matter.

5.Accordingly, the petitions stand rendered infructuous in terms of theundertaking of the petitioners and the observations recorded in the orderdatedon 6"^ February,2018 passedin thesematters.

CHIEF JUSTICE

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

OCTOBER 29, IQlWak

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHICMAPPL. 16840/2019 in+W.P.(C) 915/2018

MR. SANDEEP GARG AND ANR Petitioner

Through: Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, Adv. withMs. Leeza Taneja and Ms.Swati Yadav, Advs.Ms. Leeza Taneja and Ms.Swati Yadav, Advs.

versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .. Respondent

Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, SC forNorth DMC with Ms. SwagataBhuyan and Ms. Shiva Pandey,Advs.North DMC with Ms. SwagataBhuyan and Ms. Shiva Pandey,Advs.

Mr. Ajay Verma and Ms. RuchiChopra, Advs. for R-DDAChopra, Advs. for R-DDA

CMAPPL. 13817/2019 inW.P.(C) 916/2018W.P.(C) 916/2018

MR. SANDEEP GARG AND ANR.

Petitioners

Through: Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, Adv. withMs. Leeza Taneja and Ms.Swati Yadav, Advs.Ms. Leeza Taneja and Ms.Swati Yadav, Advs.

versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION .. Respondent

Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, SC forNorth DMC with Ms. SwagataBhuyan and Ms. Shiva Pandey,Advs.North DMC with Ms. SwagataBhuyan and Ms. Shiva Pandey,Advs.

Mr. Ajay Verma and Ms. RuchiChopra, Advs. for R-DDAChopra, Advs. for R-DDA

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

ORDER09.07.2019

1. Having heard the learned counsels for both sides and lookinginto the facts of the case, it appears that vide order dated 29"" October,2018, W.P.(C) 915/2018 and W.P.(C) 916/2018 have already beendisposed of finally .2. It that these are the andappears applicants original petitioners again they are aggrieved by the fresh cause of action that has arisendue to resealing of the premises, owned by theseapplicants/petitioners, by the respondents.3. For fresh cause of action, fresh proceedings can be initiated bythese applicants in accordance with law before appropriate forum.4. Hence, we see no reason to entertain these applications inof writ these arealready disposed petitions. Accordingly, applications dismissed.

JULY 09, 2019dsn

CHIEFiFoWrSTICEC-HARI'SHANKAR, J