W.P.(C)/356/2018 of PANKAJ AGGARWAL Vs EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

Court: Delhi High Court
Decision date: 2019-01-24
Case number: 3745/2017

Parties

RAJENDERPALSHARMAPetitionerThrough:Through (PETITIONER)
EASTDELHIMUNICIPALCORPORATION&ORS (RESPONDENT)

Cites (1)

CM(M)/1266/2017 of SADAQAT ALI MIRZA Vs EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPPRATION OF DELHI & ANR (2017)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Body

$~9,11&13

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI

+W.P.(C)No.3745/2017

RAJENDERPALSHARMAPetitionerThrough:Through:

versus

EASTDELHIMUNICIPALCORPORATION&ORS

....RespondentsThrough:Mr.KirtiUppal,Sr.Adv.withMr.AjjayAroraa(Standingcounsel)withMr.Mr.KapilDuttaalongwiththeMr.PradeepKumarKr.Mr.AjjayAroraa(Standingcounsel)withMr.Mr.KapilDuttaalongwiththeMr.PradeepKumarKr.

Khandewal,ChiefEngineerforEDMC&Mr.AkbarSiddiqui,ASCforEDMC.EDMC&Mr.AkbarSiddiqui,ASCforEDMC.

Mr.-ManojKumar,proxycounselfor

Mr.AyushGupta,Adv.forR3.

Mr.Pankaj,Adv.forR4.

+W.P.(C)No.9057/2017&CMAPPL.36992/2017

PANKAJAGGARWALPetitioner

Through:Petitionerinperson,

versus

EASTDELHIMUNICIPALCORPORATION&ORS

....RespondentsMr.ArvindKr.Sharma,Standingcounselwith:Mr.AnitejaSharma,Adv.forEDMC.counselwith:Mr.AnitejaSharma,Adv.forEDMC.

Through:

Ms.SangitaRaiwithMr.PradeepSinghTomar,Adv.forR3.SinghTomar,Adv.forR3.

W.P.(C)No.356/2018&CMAPPL.7225/2018

PANKAJAGGARWALPetitionerThrough:Petitionerinperson,versusThrough:Petitionerinperson,versus

EASTDELHIMUNICIPALCORPORATIONANDORS.

....RespondentsMr.ArvindKr.Sharma,StandingcounselwithMr.AnitejaSharma,Adv.forEDMC.

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEANUPJAIRAMBHAMBHANIORDER%24.01.2019

Incompliancewithorderdated13.12.2018,Mr.PradeepKumarKhandelwal,ChiefEngineer,NorthZone,EDMCispresentinperson.TheChiefEngineerhadbeensummonedsincethiscourtwasprimafacieoftheviewthatinstatusreport/affidavitdated11.10.2018,certainavermentswere1madewhichwerevagueregardingtheperiodbetween28.03.2016and17.09.2017;whichgavethiscourttheimpressionthattheofficersofEDMCwerebeingevasive,tosaytheleast.Bethatasitmay,inviewofwhatIproposetodointhemattertoday,thepersonalpresenceofChiefEngineerisdispensedwith.

Thegrievanceofthepetitionersinthesethreepetitionsarisefromtheallegationsandcounter-allegationsofunauthorisedconstructioninablockofDDAFlatsbearingNo.C-41/X1(GroundFloor),C-41/Z1(SecondFloor)andC-41/Z2(SecondFloor)inDilshadGarden,DelhiincludingtherooftopofFlatNo.C-41/Z1andC-41/Z2.

CounselforthepartieshoweveragreethatthreestatutoryappealsbearingNos.809/2017,885/2017and160/2018fileldbyvariouspartiesinrelationtotheself-samepropertiesandthesamegrievancesarependingbeforethelearnedAppellateTribunalMCD,inwhichallotherpartiesarealsorepresented.Infacttherearecertaininterimordersrestraining

demolitioninthesubjectpremisespassedbythelearnedATMCDinsuchappeals.

TheaforesaidthreeappealsarelistedbeforelearnedATMCDnexton26'”February,2019.

Inviewoftheforegoing,itwouldbeunnecessaryandimpropertokeepthesethreepetitionspendinginthiscourt.InfactIaminformedthatitbyreasonofpendencyofpetitionsbeforethiscourt,thattheATMCDisnotproceedingfurtherintheappealspendingbeforeit.byreasonofpendencyofpetitionsbeforethiscourt,thattheATMCDisnotproceedingfurtherintheappealspendingbeforeit.

Aceordingly,thesepetitionsaredisposedof,givinglibertytothepartiestoseektheirremedybeforethelearnedATMCDinaccordancewithlaw.

Itisclarifiedthatthiscourthasnotexpressedanyopiniononmeritsofanyofthecases.

JANUARY24,2019/w/

ANUPJAIRAMIBHAMBHANI,’J.