W.P.(C)/920/2019 of NAVEEN SOLANKI & ANR Vs GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Court: Delhi High Court
Decision date: 2019-02-21
Case number: 920/2019

Parties

NAVEEN SOLANKI & ANR (PETITIONER)
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS (RESPONDENT)

Cites (1)

TEST.CAS./31/2003 of MOHINDER SINGH Vs THE STATE AC+ (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 Header

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 920/2019 & CM Appl. 4142-43/2019

NAVEEN SOLANKI & ANR

.... Petitioners

Through:Mr Harsh Ahuja, Mr Praveen Singhand Mr Kushal Kumar, Advocates.and Mr Kushal Kumar, Advocates.

versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:Mr Anjum Javed, ASC, GNCTD withMr Devendra Kumar and Mr FaranAhmed,AdvocatesforR-1withInspector Sushil Kumar and SI GulabSingh, both of LicensingMr Devendra Kumar and Mr FaranAhmed,AdvocatesforR-1withInspector Sushil Kumar and SI GulabSingh, both of Licensing

Ms Puja Kalra, Advocate for R-2/North MCD.2/North MCD.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUO R R%29.01.2019

CM No.4143/2019

1.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 920/2019 & CM no.4142/2019

2.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying thatdirections be issued to the respondents to take the necessary action againstAditya Palace Hotel/DRS Continental Hotel, which is being run at theproperty bearing 3668/3671, Dariba Pan, Paharganj, New Delhi.3.The petitioner claims that the licence issued to respondent no.3 (Mr.RamGola)underthe“RegulationsforKeepingPlacesofPublic

Entertainment in the Union Territory of Delhi, 1980” was rejected by anorder dated 10.10.2018.It is apparent from the averments in the presentpetition that there are disputes between the petitioner and respondent no.3,with regard to the property in question.

4.The learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 submitsthat respondent no.4 (Ms Anita Gola)has applied for fresh license, whichis under consideration.He further submits that the necessary action inaccordance with law is being taken in respect of the said lodginghouse/hotel.

5.In view of the aforesaid statement, no further orders are required to bepassed in the petition except to direct respondent nos.1 and 2 to take suchaction as is necessary, in accordance with law.

6.The petition is disposed of.

7.The pending application also stands disposed of.

JANUARY 29, 2019MK

VIBHU BAKHRU, J