IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[Under Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
S.L.P. (C) No. of 2002
(With Prayer for Interim Relief)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Status of the parties before High Court Status of the parties before this
Court
1. D. Bhowmick, Petitioner Petitioner
U-18, Green Park Extension, No.1 No.1
New Delhi.
2. Aniruddha Chatterji, Petitioner Petitioner
U-17, Green Park Extension, No.2 No.2
New Delhi.
3. Kunal Mathur, Petitioner Petitioner
S/o Shri B.P. Mathur, No.4 No.3
U-21, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
4. Mrs. Suman Bhagi, Petitioner Petitioner
W/o Mr. R.N. Bhagi, No.8 No.4
U-6, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
VERSUS
Contesting
1. Delhi Development Authority, Respondent Respondent
through its Chairman, No.1 No.1
I.N.A., Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi.
Contesting
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Respondent Respondent
through the Commissioner, No.2 No.2
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110 006.
Contesting
3. Ministry of Urban Development, Respondent Respondent
through its Secretary L&DO, No.4 No.3
Govt. of India,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
Contesting
4. Commissioner of Police, Respondent Respondent
Delhi Police Headquarters, No.5 No.4
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110 002.
Contesting
5. M/s. Blue Skies Pvt. Ltd., Respondent Respondent
Trhough its Director Ms. Indrajit Singh, No.6 No.5
U-17, Mezanine Floor, Back Portion,
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
Contesting
6. Shri Ram Gopal Gupta, Respondent Respondent
V-6A, Green Park Extension, No.8 No.6
New Delhi-110 016.
Contesting
7. Dr. Saroj Jain, Respondent Respondent
U-23, Green Park Extension, No.9 No.7
New Delhi-110 016.
Contesting
8. Mr. Babu Lal Gupta, Respondent Respondent
U-20, Green Park Extension, No.10 No.8
New Delhi-110 016.
Contesting
9. Mr. Des Raj Arora, Respondent Respondent
T-19, Green Park Extension, No.11 No.9
New Delhi-110 016.
Contesting
10. Sri O.P. Goel, Respondent Respondent
V-9, Green Park Extension, No.12 No.10
New Delhi-110 016.
Contesting
11. Mr. Ratan Lal, Respondent Respondent
C/o M/s. Munni Lal Bisawashroop, No.13 No.11
72/6, Yusuf Sarai Market,
Arbindo College,
New Delhi-110 016.
Contesting
12. Sri Banwari Lal Gupta, Respondent Respondent
V-4, Green Park Extension, No.15 No.12
New Delhi-110 016.
Contesting
13. Ms. Urmila Saxena, Respondent Respondent
Owner of V-11, No.16 No.13
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi and
R/o C-242, Sarojini Nagar Flat,
New Delhi.
Contesting
14. Mr. S.P. Sabharwal, Respondent Respondent
Owner of V-13, Green Park Extension, No.17 No.14
New Delhi-110 016.
Contesting
15. Mr. A.K. Singhal, Respondent Respondent
Owner of U-17, Front Portion No.20 No.15
Of Second Floor,
R/o D-245, Sarvodaya Enclave,
New Delhi.
Performa
16. M/s. Jasmine Exports, Respondent Respondent
through its Proprietor S.S. Sarna, No.7 No.16
U-17, Basement, Green Park Extn.,
New Delhi-16.
Performa
17. Hari Shanker Gupta, Respondent Respondent
8/4, Yusuf Sarai Market, No.14 No.17
Arbindo Marg,
New Delhi-110 016.
Performa
18. Buinese India Group Media, Respondent Respondent
Through Managing Director No.18 No.18
Ist Floor, R/o V-13,
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
Performa
19. Lan Eseda Computer, Respondent Respondent
Through Managing Director No.19 No.19
Ground Floor, V-13,
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
Performa
20. Nexus Computers, Respondent Respondent
Through Managing Director No.21 No.20
U-17, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
Performa
21. Mrs. Anita Bhattacharya, Petitioner Respondent
W/o Bidyut Bhattacharya, No.3 No.21
U-17, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
Performa
22. Mr. R.D. Dureja, Petitioner Respondent
S/o Shri P.N. Dureja, No.5 No.22
R/o U-5, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
Performa
23. Mrs. S. Pahwa, Petitioner Respondent
W/o Mr. Pahwa, No.6 No.23
U-19, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
Performa
24. Shri B.N. Chawla, Petitioner Respondent
S/o Late Shri Rai Saheb Jawahar Lal, No.7 No.24
V-10, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
Performa
25. Lt. Governor of Delhi, Respondent Respondent
through the Coordination Cell, No.25 No.25
Delhi Administration,
Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA
To,
Hon. The Chief Justice of India
And His Companion Justices of
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India.
The humble Petition of the Petitioners abovenamed.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOETH:
1. That this is a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India against the common and final judgment and order of
the Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated May 31, 2002 in
CWP No. 4316 of 1994. The Full Bench of the Hon. High Court while answering
the question referred to it as to whether the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
or the Delhi Development Authority or the New Delhi Municipal Council could
seal the premises in case of a misuser, . disposed of the Writ Petition
by, inter alia, holding that neither the Delhi Development Act, 1957
(hereinafter referred to as `the 1957 Act') nor the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957 (`the DMC Act' for short) gives power to seal property
of any person for misuser of the premises. It has been further held that a
statute providing for sealing of a premises is a drastic statute by reason
of exercise of which power a person could become homeless thus affecting the
basic human rights or the Fundamental Rights, conferred upon a person. The
Full Bench of the Hon. High Court was of the view that the power to be
exercised in relation to misuse has been intentionally excluded from the
operation of the relevant provisions under the DMC Act and the 1957 Act and
that only penal provisions can be taken recourse to and that the same would
not include sealing of the premises. The Full Bench was of the view that
the power to seal is like an additional punishment over and above the action
taken under the penal provisions and, therefore, such an additional
provision should not be inferred or read into from the provisions of the DMC
Act and the 1957 Act with reference to power to seal. The High Court held
that the power to seal could be excercised only in cases of ongoing
unauthorised construction under Section 31A of the 1957 Act and under
Section 345A of the DMC Act.
2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:
That important questions of law that arise for consideration of this
Hon'ble Court are:-
A. Whether the statutory authorities under the DMC Act, the 1957 Act, the
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (as was applicable to the areas of New Delhi) and
the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 have power to seal premises which
are either being misused i.e., being used for the purposes other than for
which they were built/granted sanctioned plans for construction or were
being unauthorisedly constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan and the
Master Plan or in cases where there were encroachments.
B. Whether the authorities under the 1957 Act are required to, as a
statutory obligation, oversee that the development of Delhi takes place in
accordance with the Master Plan framed and formulated under Section 7 of the
1957 Act inasmuch as the Master Plan defines the various zones into which
the Delhi may be divided for the purpose of development and also indicates
the manner in which the land in each zone is to be used.
C. Whether in view of Section 14 of the 1957 Act, there is a complete bar on
any person to use or permit to be used any land or building otherwise than
in conformity with the Plans. Thus the Legislature has provided a complete
bar/prohibition for misuser, excepting to the extent allowed under the
Regulations.
D. Whether the Hon. High Court has completely failed to appreciate Section
28 of the 1957 Act which authorises the doing of any other thing necessary
for the efficient administration of this Act which, it is respectfully
submitted, includes the power to direct sealing of the properties in case of
misuse.
E. Whether the Hon. High Court is in error in holding that the only power
that the authority under the 1957 Act can use is to impose penalty under
Section 29 when there is any contravention of Section 12 or Section 14 of
the said Act or whether in exercise of such power it is open to seal the
properties as well, as has been specifically provided under Section 31A of
the 1957 Act.
F. Whether the construction placed by the Hon. High Court on the provisions
of Sections 29, 30, 31 and 31A are correct in law insofar as it holds that
there is no power in the authorities in exercise of Section 31A to seal a
premises which is being misused. The Hon. High Court appears to have
glossed over that part of Section 31A which provides for sealing for the
purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act.
G. Whether the Hon. High Court has committed an error in similarly
interpreting the provisions of the DMC Act, especially with reference to
Chapter XVI under the heading `Building Regulations'.
H. Whether the Hon. High Court is in error in holding, despite the provision
contained in Section 345A of the DMC Act giving express power to seal
properties, that such power to seal was only with reference to unauthorised
constructions and not with reference to misuser overlooking the provisions
of Section 347 which expressly prohibits the use of any premises for a
purpose other than for which it was sanctioned.
I. Whether the Hon'ble High Court is in error in holding that human rights
/Fundamental rights of persons misusing the property is being violated while
overlooking the fact that citizens who abide by the laws their human rights
and Fundamental rights are being violated and as between the two the law
abiding citizen has to be preferred.
3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2):
The Petitioners state that no other Petition for Special Leave has been
filed by them earlier against the impugned judgment and order dated 31st
May, 2002 in CWP No.4316 of 1994 and this is the only Petition filed against
the said order.
4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6:
N.A.
5. GROUNDS:
Leave to Appeal is being sought on the following among other grounds:
A. That the Hon. High Court has committed an error in holding that the
statutory authorities under the DMC Act, the 1957 Act, the Punjab Municipal
Act, 1911 (as was applicable to the areas of New Delhi) and the New Delhi
Municipal Council Act, 1994 have no power to seal premises which are either
being misused i.e., being used for the purposes other than for which they
were built/ granted sanctioned plans for construction or were being
unauthorisedly constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan and the
Master Plan or in cases where there were encroachments.
B. That the Hon. High Court has committed an error by overlooking a fact
that the authorities under the 1957 Act are required to, as a statutory
obligation, oversee that the development of Delhi takes place in accordance
with the Master Plan framed and formulated under Section 7 of the 1957 Act
inasmuch as the Master Plan defines the various zones into which the Delhi
may be divided for the purpose of development and also indicate the manner
in which the land in each zone is to be used.
C. That the Hon. High Court has committed an error by overlooking that in
view of Section 14 of the 1957 Act, there is a complete bar on any person to
use or permit to be used any land or building otherwise than in conformity
with the Plans. Thus there is a complete bar/prohibition for misuser,
excepting to the extent allowed under the Regulations.
D. That the Hon. High Court has completely failed to appreciate Section 28
of the 1957 Act which authorises the doing of any other thing necessary for
the efficient administration of this Act which, it is respectfully
submitted, includes the power to direct sealing of the properties in case of
misuse.
E. That the Hon. High Court is in error in holding that the only power that
the authority under the 1957 Act can use is to impose penalty under Section
29 when there is any contravention of Section 12 or Section 14 of the said
Act completely ignoring that in exercise of such power it is open to seal
the properties as well, as has been specifically provided under Section 31A
of the 1957 Act.
F. That the construction placed by the Hon. High Court on the provisions of
Sections 29, 30, 31 and 31A is not correct in law insofar as it holds that
there is no power in the authorities in exercise of Section 31A to seal a
premises which is being misused. The Hon. High Court appears to have
glossed over that part of Section 31A which provides for sealing for the
purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act.
G. That the Hon. High Court has committed an error in similarly
interpreting the provisions of the DMC Act, especially with reference to
Chapter XVI under the heading `Building Regulations'.
H. That the Hon. High Court is in error in holding, despite the provision
contained in Section 345A of the DMC Act giving express power to seal
properties, that such power to seal was only with reference to unauthorised
constructions and not with reference to misuser overlooking the provisions
of Section 347 which expressly prohibits the use of any premises for a
purpose other than for which it was sanctioned.
I. That the Hon. High Court has committed an error in holding that the
authorities under the various Municipal Acts of Delhi do not have the power
to seal a premises which is being misused, inter alia, on the ground that a
person could become homeless or that it violates the human rights and
Fundamental Rights of such persons. It is respectfully submitted that what
the Hon. High Court has clearly overlooked in coming to this conclusion is
by giving an example of temporary misuser vis-à-vis cases which are rampant
and can be seen in this City of Delhi and New Delhi where permanent misuser
are being allowed to be continued in connivance with and by encouragement of
the staff of such authorities causing great harm not only to the environment
but to the civic amenities which have been provided, keeping in mind the
user of residence while the user is being made of that of commercial nature.
J. That by restraining the authorities from sealing those premises which
have either been unauthorisedly constructed or have been put to user other
than the purpose for which they were sanctioned, the Hon. High Court has
done disservice to law abiding citizens, not only in Green Park or Green
Park Extension areas but also those residing in other parts of Delhi and New
Delhi,. This would also bad to other law abiding citizens to also follow
suit and pay penalties in line with those who have either unauthorisedly
made constructions or have put their property to use other than the purpose
for which it was sanctioned. It is the respectful submission of the
Petitioners that if the impugned judgment of the Hon. High Court is allowed
to stay, those who have so far been law abiding citizens would be encouraged
to also make constructions unauthorisedly and to put their properties also
to unauthorised use as has been done by those whose specific instances were
there before the Hon. High Court.
K. That by the impugned judgment the Hon. High Court has given a clean chit
to the officials of the authorities concerned, who connived with the law
breakers, whose responsibility was to ensure that the properties are used
for the purpose they have been sanctioned and that there is no unauthorised
construction in their respective areas.
L. That the Hon. High Court has overlooked a very glaring and disturbing
fact that out of 1070 properties inspected only in one residential area by
the officials of the authorities concerned, 539 cases were of those in
which unauthorised constructions had taken place, 174 were of misuser of
the property and 138 cases were those in which the law flouters have applied
to the MCD for regularisation. It is only 20% of those inspected who were
found to be law abiders and whose human rights and Fundamental Rights are
being violated by the rest 80% inhabitants of the Green Park and Green Park
Extension area, but still the Hon. High Court in the judgment impugned
chose to speak of human rights and Fundamental Rights of those who have
flouted the law and not of those who have so far been law abiding and have
been suffering because of those 80%. In the affidavits filed before the
Hon. High Court by the MCD it was pointed out to the Hon'ble Court that
even in cases where unauthorised construction had been demolished, the
residents have again constructed the demolished portion which shows that
many of the inhabitants of Green Park and Green Park Extension area are in
any case bent upon to flout the law.
M. That by holding that the authorities concerned have no power vested in
them to seal the properties which have been found to be either
unauthorisedly constructed or put to user other than for which they were
sanctioned the Hon'ble Court has gone contrary to the legislative intent.
It would never have been the intention of the Legislature to allow those who
have unauthoritisedly construced their properties or have put it to
unauthorised use to continue to enjoy the properties by paying the
penalties.
N. That the Hon. High Court has committed an error in holding that the
sealing of a premises was contrary to human rights and Fundamental Rights
overlooking the fact that the Fundamental Rights and the human rights of
citizens who abide by the laws and who conform to the laws are being
violated by those who do not want to conform to the laws and who do not
abide by the laws. The Full Bench ought to have compared the competing
rights of persons who abide by the law and those who take pleasure in
violating the law and who had to pay certain misuser charges or
regularisation charges in connivance with the authorities, jeopardising the
entire environment and the surroundings of citizens who like to live by the
law.
O. That the Hon. High Court has committed an error in not appreciating the
mandate of the Constitution, specially with reference to Part IXA under the
heading `Municipalities' and the Twelfth Schedule which, inter alia,
includes regulation of land use and construction of buildings, urban
forestry, protection of the environment and promotion of the ecological
aspects, etc. etc. It has been expressly provided under Article 243W of
the Constitution under the heading `Powers of Authorities and
Responsibilities of Municipalities' that the powers to be exercised by such
authorities must be such as to enable them to carry out the responsibilities
conferred upon them, including those matters which are listed in the Twelfth
Schedule. It is respectfully submitted that the decision of the Full Bench
is required to be set aside on this ground alone.
6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
That the Petitioners have a very good case and there is every likelihood of
their succeeding before this Hon. Court, especially in view of the fact that
the Petitioners are law abiding citizens of Delhi and those who have been
bent upon to flout the law have been favoured with by the impugned judgment
rendered by the Hon. High Court, which judgment of the Hon. High Court is
being challenged by the Petitioners by way of instant Petition. The
impugned judgment of the Hon. High Court is erroneous for reasons more than
one. Firstly, the Hon. High Court has committed an error in holding that
the statutory authorities under the DMC Act, the 1957 Act, the Punjab
Municipal Act, 1911 (as was applicable to the areas of New Delhi) and the
New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 have no power to seal premises which
are either being misused i.e., being used for the purposes other than for
which they were built/granted sanctioned plans for construction or were
being unauthorisedly constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan and the
Master Plan or in cases where there were encroachments. Secondly, the Hon.
High Court has overlooked the fact that the authorities under the 1957 Act
are required to, as a statutory obligation, oversee that the development of
Delhi takes place in accordance with the Master Plan framed and formulated
under Section 7 of the 1957 Act inasmuch as the Master Plan defines the
various zones into which the Delhi may be divided for the purpose of
development and also indicate the manner in which the land in each zone is
to be used. Thirdly, by restraining the authorities from sealing those
premises which have either been unauthorisedly constructed or have been put
to user other than the purpose for which they were sanctioned, the Hon. High
Court has done disservice to law abiding citizens, not only in Green Park or
Green Park Extension areas but also those residing in other parts of Delhi
and New Delhi. This would also bad to other law abiding citizens to also
follow suit and pay penalties in line with those who have either
unauthorisedly made constructions or have put their property to use other
than the purpose for which it was sanctioned. If the impugned judgment of
the Hon. High Court is not stayed, not only the Petitioners but also the
other law abiding citizens of Delhi will be put to irreparable hardship. It
is, therefore, the respectful submission of the Petitioners that pending the
disposal of the appeal of the Petitioners by this Hon. Court, the judgment
and order impugned of the Hon. High Court in this appeal be stayed.
7. MAIN PRAYER:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to:-
a) grant special leave to appeal against the common and final judgment and
order of the Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated May
31, 2002 in CWP No. 4316 of 1994;
b) pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to:-
a) stay the operation of the common and final judgment and order of the Full
Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated May 31, 2002 in CWP No.
4316 of 1994;
(b) direct the respondent nos. 1 to 5 not to process cases submitted for
regularization of unauthorized constructions and those submitted for
regularization of misuser till the disposal of appeal by this Hon'ble Court;
(c) direct that properties which are being used by respondent nos. 6 to 16
for purposes other than for which they are allowed as per Master Plan be
sealed;
(d) pass an ex-parte order in terms of prayers (a) (b) and (c)above;
(e) pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Drafted on: 19.8.2002 Filed by:
Filed on: 21.8.2002 B. VIJAYALAKSHMI MENON
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS
SETTLED BY :
RANJIT KUMAR,
SENIOR ADVOCATE.
SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
That the present Special Leave Petition arises from a judgment of the Full
Bench of the Delhi High Court which, inter alia, holds that neither the
Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as `the 1957 Act') nor
the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (`the DMC Act' for short) gives
power to seal property of any person for misuser of the premises. The
question referred to the Full Bench was as to whether the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi or the Delhi Development Authority or the New Delhi
Municipal Council could seal the premises in case of a misuser. It has
been, inter alia, held that a statute providing for sealing of a premises is
a drastic statute by reason of exercise of which power a person could become
homeless thus affecting the basic human rights or the Fundamental Rights
conferred upon a person. The Full Bench of the Hon. High Court is of the
view that the power to be exercised in relation to misuse has been
intentionally excluded from the operation of the relevant provisions under
the DMC Act and the 1957 Act and that only penal provisions can be taken
recourse to and that the same would not include sealing of the premises.
The Full Bench was of the view that the power to seal is like an additional
punishment over and above the action taken under the penal provisions and,
therefore, such an additional provision should not be inferred or read into
from the provisions of the DMC Act and the 1957 Act with reference to power
to seal.
It is the respectful submission of the Petitioners that if a property is
being misused or is being used in a manner which is contrary to the Master
Plan, the Zonal Development Plan and the Zonal Regulations or the Building
Bye-Laws and if like in a residential area a premises is being used for
commercial purpose which amounts to a misuse of a property, it is clearly in
violation and breach of the law and the power to seal such premises because
of the misuser, apart from other penal action that can be taken, is
prescribed under the law and the judgment of the Full Bench is incorrect and
required to be set aside. If the authorities can continue to allow such
misuser without there being a power to seal the premises, the person who
misuses the property would continue to do so without any deterrent action
and all that he may be required to give in that circumstance is certain
misuser charges which a person may be very happy to pay considering the
nature of the commercial activity carried out in a residential area.
1957 The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and the Delhi Development Act were
enacted.
1958 The residential colony of Green Park was developed.
1983 Unified Building Bye-Laws drawn and made applicable to the Union
Territory of Delhi.
1993 Unauthorised constructions started in large scale.
10.6.93/20.7.93/20.8.93 Letters were written to the MCD intimating about
illegal and unauthorised constructions and misuser and the consequent
violation of the Master Plan, etc. Since the authorities failed to carry
out their statutory obligations, the Writ Petition was filed.
October, 1994 The Petitioners in the instant Special Leave Petition are
persons who had filed a writ petition before the Hon. High Court being
residents of Green Park Extension which is planned developed and established
residential colony, as per the Layout of the Master Plan of Delhi. They had
complained before the Delhi High Court by way of a writ petition being
C.W.P. No. 4316 of 1994 as to how the Building Bye-Laws were being violated
and there was misuse and unauthorised use of the residential premises for
commercial purposes carried out in the residential colonies with specific
instances having been cited and the complaint was the total inaction on the
part of the Government authorities in stopping such misuse or violations
and, in fact, going to the extent of encouraging or conniving with persons
who were indulging in such unauthorised constructions or in misuse of the
premises. It was complained that the respondents were not carrying out
their statutory duties in stopping such misuse and thus a writ of mandamus
was required commanding the respondent - authorities not to allow any
illegal commercial user or unauthorised construction and for a direction to
take appropriate action in accordance with law. It was specifically
complained that by the inaction or by the acts of omission and commission of
the authorities, the environment in the residential colony was being totally
polluted and the civic amenities were being jeopardised because of the
misuser.
19.10.1994 The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was pleased to issue
notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the petition be not
admitted.
April, 1995 In the show-cause reply filed by the MCD before the Hon. High
Court, the MCD admitted that there were violations insofar as the premises
of which examples had been given in the writ petition and that show-cause
notices under the DMC Act had been given to such persons and that the
Corporation was doing its best to prevent encroachments on public land.
September, 1995 In the affidavit filed by the Delhi Development Authority
(DDA) before the Hon. High Court, it was, inter alia, averred that the writ
petition hardly disclosed any cause of action against the DDA. It was
stated that the DDA can take action against the defaulters who are misusing
residential premises for use other than residence. The DDA admitted that
the Petitioner had pointed out a few cases where residential houses were
being put to misuse and that the DDA had initiated action against such
persons. The dates of notices issued and actions taken against those
misusers would show that they were taken only after the writ petition had
been filed and notice issued in the writ petition.
Affidavits were also filed by the added respondents who were misusing the
premises, inter alia, stating that the activity which they were doing did
not amount to misuse while admitting that offices were being run and that
show cause notices issued to them by the authorities were being replied to,
etc.
19.10.1995 The Division Bench of the Hon. High Court directed the MCD and
the DDA to proceed in accordance with law against the unauthorised
constructions and further directed that responsible officers of the
authorities should file affidavit reporting compliance and progress in the
matter and action taken.
4th March, 1997 MCD filed its affidavit with reference to the properties of
which examples had been given, inter alia, stating the action taken to the
effect that owners had been booked with reference to unauthorised
constructions and also disclosing that despite demolition, there were owners
who had again constructed the demolished portion and that action was again
being taken.
25th April, 1997 The DDA filed a further affidavit stating that it had
initiated action under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the 1957 Act
against the defaulters who were using residential premises for purposes
other than residential.
14th October, 1997 A Division Bench of the Hon. High Court found on a
perusal of the record how encroachments had been taking place on public
road, the area thereunder was being misused and there was illegal
construction in Blocks U and E of Green Park Extension. The action to be
taken on such encroachments, illegal constructions and misuse was sought
from the authority.
10th December, 1998 The MCD filed another affidavit admitting that there
were encroachments existing at the places marked in the sketch and were
being removed.
May, 1999 The MCD filed affidavits that in mass demolition undertaken by the
MCD officials, encroachments on the right of way had been removed.
March, 2000 Pursuant to the order of the Hon. High Court dated February 16,
2000, the MCD submitted a status report in respect of the properties in
Green Park and Green Park Extension and stated that in an extensive survey
conducted by the MCD staff it was found that user of the properties within
the area of Green Park and Green Park Extension had been changed and,
therefore, fresh prosecution had been initiated and that fresh action had
also been taken with reference to unauthorised constructions and consequent
demolitions. In the Chart annexed as a part of the Survey Report which
consisted of approximately 663 properties in Green Park Main and 407
properties in Green Park Extension, it was found that many premises were
being used as commercial or partly commercial and that in many cases
applications for regularisations had been submitted which was under process
(it is the submission of the Petitioners that their applications for
regularisation is itself contrary to the law).
5th April, 2000 A Division Bench of the Hon. High Court noted in its order
that out of 1070 properties inspected, unauthorised construction was found
in 539 properties while the misuser was found in 174 properties. In cases
of 138 properties persons concerned had moved for regularisation before the
MCD.
May, 2000 The MCD filed another affidavit before the Hon. High Court giving
details, inter alia, of the mass sealing action taken in accordance with law
with reference to several properties. It was further stated that in quite a
few cases there were stay orders that were passed by various courts in terms
whereof the sealing action of the MCD had been stayed and the MCD also
enclosed therewith several detailed orders passed by the courts, including
the High Court, in suits filed challenging the action of sealing.
12th September, 2000 A Division Bench of the Hon. High Court while noting
progress given in the Status Report issued notice to the Union of India
soliciting the views of the Urban Development Ministry with regard to the
question of unauthorised construction and misuser of the properties.
May 31, 2002 By the impugned common and final judgment the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in CWP No. 4316 of 1994 held that neither the Delhi Development
Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as `the 1957 Act') nor the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (`the DMC Act' for short) gives power to
seal property of any person for misuser of the premises. It has been,
inter alia, held that a statute providing for sealing of a premises is a
drastic statute by reason of exercise of which power a person could become
homeless thus affecting the basic human rights or the Fundamental Rights
conferred upon a person. The Full Bench of the Hon. High Court is of the
view that the power to be exercised in relation to misuse has been
intentionally excluded from the operation of the relevant provisions under
the DMC Act and the 1957 Act and that only penal provisions can be taken
recourse to and that the same would not include sealing of the premises.
The Full Bench was of the view that the power to seal is like an additional
punishment over and above the action taken under the penal provisions and,
therefore, such an additional provision should not be inferred or read into
from the provisions of the DMC Act and the 1957 Act with reference to power
to seal.
Hence this Petition for Special Leave to Appeal.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[Under Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
S.L.P. (C) No. of 2002
(With Prayer for Interim Relief)
IN THE MATTER OF:
D. Bhowmick & Ors. Petitioners
VERSUS
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. Respondents
CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the pleadings
before the Court/Tribunal whose order is challenged and the other documents
relied upon in those proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds
have been taken therein or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. This
Certificate is given on the basis of the instructions given by the
petitioner and whose affidavit is filed in support of the Special Leave
Petition.
Filed by:
Drafted on :19.8.2002
Dated of filing :21.8.2002 MS. VIJAYALAKSHMI MENON
Advocate for the Petitioners
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[Under Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
S.L.P. (C) No. of 2002
(With Prayer for Interim Relief)
(Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the
Judgment and Order dated 31st May, 2002 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in CWP No.4316 of 1994)
IN THE MATTER OF:
D. Bhowmick & Ors. Petitioners
VERSUS
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. Respondents
With
I.A. No. of 2002 Application for
exemption from filing
certified copy of the
impugned order
PAPER -BOOK
(FOR INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE)
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS: MS. VIJAYALAKSHMI MENON
I N D E X
1. Office Report on Limitation.
2. Synopsis and List of Dates & Events
3. Impugned Judgment and Order dated
31st May, 2002 passed by the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in CWP No.4316 of 1994
4. Special Leave Petition along with
Affidavit.
5. Application for exemption from filing
certified copy of the impugned order
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[Under Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
S.L.P. (C) No. of 2002
(With Prayer for Interim Relief)
IN THE MATTER OF:
D. Bhowmick & Ors. Petitioners
VERSUS
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. Respondents
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER
To,
Hon. The Chief Justice of India
And His Companion Justices of
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India.
The Petitioners abovenamed.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. The petitioners have this day filed the captioned Special Leave Petition
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the common and final
judgment and order of the Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
dated May 31, 2002 in CWP No. 4316 of 1994. The Full Bench of the Hon. High
Court while answering the question referred to it as to whether the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi or the Delhi Development Authority or the New
Delhi Municipal Council could seal the premises in case of a misuser, .
disposed of the Writ Petition by, inter alia, holding that neither the
Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as `the 1957 Act') nor
the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (`the DMC Act' for short) gives
power to seal property of any person for misuser of the premises. It has
been further held that a statute providing for sealing of a premises is a
drastic statute by reason of exercise of which power a person could become
homeless thus affecting the basic human rights or the Fundamental Rights,
conferred upon a person. The Full Bench of the Hon. High Court was of the
view that the power to be exercised in relation to misuse has been
intentionally excluded from the operation of the relevant provisions under
the DMC Act and the 1957 Act and that only penal provisions can be taken
recourse to and that the same would not include sealing of the premises.
The Full Bench was of the view that the power to seal is like an additional
punishment over and above the action taken under the penal provisions and,
therefore, such an additional provision should not be inferred or read into
from the provisions of the DMC Act and the 1957 Act with reference to power
to seal. The High Court held that the power to seal could be excercised
only in cases of ongoing unauthorised construction under Section 31A of the
1957 Act and under Section 345A of the DMC Act. The petitioners crave leave
to refer and rely upon the contents of the captioned Special Leave Petition
and the same as not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
2. That the petitioners have applied for the certified copy of the order
dated 31.5.2002 and till date the same is not ready. Therefore, the
petitioners are filing the ordinary typed copy of the order and prays that
the same may be taken on record and grant exemption to the petitioners from
filing the certified copy.
Under the facts and circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(a ) grant exemption to the petitioner from filing the certified copy of
the final order dated 31.5.2002 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
CWP No.4316 of 1994.
(e) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Filed by :
New Delhi MS. VIJAYALAKSHMI MENON
Dated : Advocate for the Petitioners
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[Under Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
S.L.P. (C) No. of 2002
(With Prayer for Interim Relief)
IN THE MATTER OF:
D. Bhowmick & Ors. Petitioners
VERSUS
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. Respondents
REPORT ON LIMITATION
The above Special Leave Petition is within time.
Section Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[Under Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
S.L.P. (C) No. of 2002
(With Prayer for Interim Relief)
IN THE MATTER OF:
D. Bhowmick & Ors. Petitioners
VERSUS
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. Respondents
MEMO OF PARTIES
1. D. Bhowmick,
U-18, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
2. Aniruddha Chatterji,
U-17, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
3. Kunal Mathur,
S/o Shri B.P. Mathur,
U-21, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
4. Mrs. Suman Bhagi,
W/o Mr. R.N. Bhagi,
U-6, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi. . Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Delhi Development Authority,
through its Chairman,
I.N.A., Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi.
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
through the Commissioner,
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110 006.
3. Lt. Governor of Delhi,
through the Coordination Cell,
Delhi Administration,
Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
4. Ministry of Urban Development,
through its Secretary L&DO,
Govt. of India,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
5. Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police Headquarters,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110 002.
6. M/s. Blue Skies Pvt. Ltd.,
Trhough its Director Ms. Indrajit Singh,
U-17, Mezanine Floor, Back Portion,
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
7. Shri Ram Gopal Gupta,
V-6A, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
8. Dr. Saroj Jain,
U-23, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
9. Mr. Babu Lal Gupta,
U-20, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
10. Mr. Des Raj Arora,
T-19, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
11. Sri O.P. Goel,
V-9, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
12. Mr. Ratan Lal,
C/o M/s. Munni Lal Bisawashroop,
72/6, Yusuf Sarai Market,
Arbindo College,
New Delhi-110 016.
13. Sri Banwari Lal Gupta,
V-4, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
14. Ms. Urmila Saxena,
Owner of V-11,
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi and
R/o C-242, Sarojini Nagar Flat,
New Delhi.
15. Mr. S.P. Sabharwal,
Owner of V-13, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
16. Mr. A.K. Singhal,
Owner of U-17, Front Portion
Of Second Floor,
R/o D-245, Sarvodaya Enclave,
New Delhi.
17. M/s. Jasmine Exports,
through its Proprietor S.S. Sarna,
U-17, Basement, Green Park Extn.,
New Delhi-16.
18. Hari Shanker Gupta,
8/4, Yusuf Sarai Market,
Arbindo Marg,
New Delhi-110 016.
19. Buinese India Group Media,
Ist Floor, R/o V-13,
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
20. Lan Eseda Computer,
Ground Floor, V-13,
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
21. Nexus Computers,
U-17, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
22. Mrs. Anita Bhattacharya,
W/o Bidyut Bhattacharya,
U-17, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
23. Mr. R.D. Dureja,
S/o Shri P.N. Dureja,
R/o U-5, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
24. Mrs. S. Pahwa,
W/o Mr. Pahwa,
U-19, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
25. Shri B.N. Chawla,
S/o Late Shri Rai Saheb Jawahar Lal,
V-10, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi. . Respondents
Filed by :
New Delhi Vijayalakshmi Menon
Dated : Advocates for the Petitioners
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. OF 2002
In the matter of:
D. Bhowmick & Ors. . Petitioners
Versus
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. . Respondents
A F F I D A V I T
I, D. Bhowmick son of aged about years resident of
do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :
1. That I am one of the petitioner No.1 in the above case and as such
competent to depose.
2. That I have gone through the contents of accompanying Special Leave
Petition page Nos. to and List of Dates and Events
page Nos. to and state that the contents of para 1
is a matter of record and paras 2, 5 and 6 are based on legal advise
received by me and believed to be correct and para 3 is true to my knowledge
and last para contains prayer to this Hon'ble Court.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :
Verified that the contents of paras 1 to 3 of the above affidavit are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and no part of it is false and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Verified at on day of August, 2002.
DEPONENT
----- Original Message -----
From: Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 1:57 PM
Subject: [mpisgplanner] Kahyap caught MCD bribe-taker!
[Under Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
S.L.P. (C) No. of 2002
(With Prayer for Interim Relief)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Status of the parties before High Court Status of the parties before this
Court
1. D. Bhowmick, Petitioner Petitioner
U-18, Green Park Extension, No.1 No.1
New Delhi.
2. Aniruddha Chatterji, Petitioner Petitioner
U-17, Green Park Extension, No.2 No.2
New Delhi.
3. Kunal Mathur, Petitioner Petitioner
S/o Shri B.P. Mathur, No.4 No.3
U-21, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
4. Mrs. Suman Bhagi, Petitioner Petitioner
W/o Mr. R.N. Bhagi, No.8 No.4
U-6, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
VERSUS
Contesting
1. Delhi Development Authority, Respondent Respondent
through its Chairman, No.1 No.1
I.N.A., Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi.
Contesting
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Respondent Respondent
through the Commissioner, No.2 No.2
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110 006.
Contesting
3. Ministry of Urban Development, Respondent Respondent
through its Secretary L&DO, No.4 No.3
Govt. of India,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
Contesting
4. Commissioner of Police, Respondent Respondent
Delhi Police Headquarters, No.5 No.4
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110 002.
Contesting
5. M/s. Blue Skies Pvt. Ltd., Respondent Respondent
Trhough its Director Ms. Indrajit Singh, No.6 No.5
U-17, Mezanine Floor, Back Portion,
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
Contesting
6. Shri Ram Gopal Gupta, Respondent Respondent
V-6A, Green Park Extension, No.8 No.6
New Delhi-110 016.
Contesting
7. Dr. Saroj Jain, Respondent Respondent
U-23, Green Park Extension, No.9 No.7
New Delhi-110 016.
Contesting
8. Mr. Babu Lal Gupta, Respondent Respondent
U-20, Green Park Extension, No.10 No.8
New Delhi-110 016.
Contesting
9. Mr. Des Raj Arora, Respondent Respondent
T-19, Green Park Extension, No.11 No.9
New Delhi-110 016.
Contesting
10. Sri O.P. Goel, Respondent Respondent
V-9, Green Park Extension, No.12 No.10
New Delhi-110 016.
Contesting
11. Mr. Ratan Lal, Respondent Respondent
C/o M/s. Munni Lal Bisawashroop, No.13 No.11
72/6, Yusuf Sarai Market,
Arbindo College,
New Delhi-110 016.
Contesting
12. Sri Banwari Lal Gupta, Respondent Respondent
V-4, Green Park Extension, No.15 No.12
New Delhi-110 016.
Contesting
13. Ms. Urmila Saxena, Respondent Respondent
Owner of V-11, No.16 No.13
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi and
R/o C-242, Sarojini Nagar Flat,
New Delhi.
Contesting
14. Mr. S.P. Sabharwal, Respondent Respondent
Owner of V-13, Green Park Extension, No.17 No.14
New Delhi-110 016.
Contesting
15. Mr. A.K. Singhal, Respondent Respondent
Owner of U-17, Front Portion No.20 No.15
Of Second Floor,
R/o D-245, Sarvodaya Enclave,
New Delhi.
Performa
16. M/s. Jasmine Exports, Respondent Respondent
through its Proprietor S.S. Sarna, No.7 No.16
U-17, Basement, Green Park Extn.,
New Delhi-16.
Performa
17. Hari Shanker Gupta, Respondent Respondent
8/4, Yusuf Sarai Market, No.14 No.17
Arbindo Marg,
New Delhi-110 016.
Performa
18. Buinese India Group Media, Respondent Respondent
Through Managing Director No.18 No.18
Ist Floor, R/o V-13,
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
Performa
19. Lan Eseda Computer, Respondent Respondent
Through Managing Director No.19 No.19
Ground Floor, V-13,
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
Performa
20. Nexus Computers, Respondent Respondent
Through Managing Director No.21 No.20
U-17, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
Performa
21. Mrs. Anita Bhattacharya, Petitioner Respondent
W/o Bidyut Bhattacharya, No.3 No.21
U-17, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
Performa
22. Mr. R.D. Dureja, Petitioner Respondent
S/o Shri P.N. Dureja, No.5 No.22
R/o U-5, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
Performa
23. Mrs. S. Pahwa, Petitioner Respondent
W/o Mr. Pahwa, No.6 No.23
U-19, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
Performa
24. Shri B.N. Chawla, Petitioner Respondent
S/o Late Shri Rai Saheb Jawahar Lal, No.7 No.24
V-10, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
Performa
25. Lt. Governor of Delhi, Respondent Respondent
through the Coordination Cell, No.25 No.25
Delhi Administration,
Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA
To,
Hon. The Chief Justice of India
And His Companion Justices of
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India.
The humble Petition of the Petitioners abovenamed.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOETH:
1. That this is a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India against the common and final judgment and order of
the Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated May 31, 2002 in
CWP No. 4316 of 1994. The Full Bench of the Hon. High Court while answering
the question referred to it as to whether the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
or the Delhi Development Authority or the New Delhi Municipal Council could
seal the premises in case of a misuser, . disposed of the Writ Petition
by, inter alia, holding that neither the Delhi Development Act, 1957
(hereinafter referred to as `the 1957 Act') nor the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957 (`the DMC Act' for short) gives power to seal property
of any person for misuser of the premises. It has been further held that a
statute providing for sealing of a premises is a drastic statute by reason
of exercise of which power a person could become homeless thus affecting the
basic human rights or the Fundamental Rights, conferred upon a person. The
Full Bench of the Hon. High Court was of the view that the power to be
exercised in relation to misuse has been intentionally excluded from the
operation of the relevant provisions under the DMC Act and the 1957 Act and
that only penal provisions can be taken recourse to and that the same would
not include sealing of the premises. The Full Bench was of the view that
the power to seal is like an additional punishment over and above the action
taken under the penal provisions and, therefore, such an additional
provision should not be inferred or read into from the provisions of the DMC
Act and the 1957 Act with reference to power to seal. The High Court held
that the power to seal could be excercised only in cases of ongoing
unauthorised construction under Section 31A of the 1957 Act and under
Section 345A of the DMC Act.
2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:
That important questions of law that arise for consideration of this
Hon'ble Court are:-
A. Whether the statutory authorities under the DMC Act, the 1957 Act, the
Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (as was applicable to the areas of New Delhi) and
the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 have power to seal premises which
are either being misused i.e., being used for the purposes other than for
which they were built/granted sanctioned plans for construction or were
being unauthorisedly constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan and the
Master Plan or in cases where there were encroachments.
B. Whether the authorities under the 1957 Act are required to, as a
statutory obligation, oversee that the development of Delhi takes place in
accordance with the Master Plan framed and formulated under Section 7 of the
1957 Act inasmuch as the Master Plan defines the various zones into which
the Delhi may be divided for the purpose of development and also indicates
the manner in which the land in each zone is to be used.
C. Whether in view of Section 14 of the 1957 Act, there is a complete bar on
any person to use or permit to be used any land or building otherwise than
in conformity with the Plans. Thus the Legislature has provided a complete
bar/prohibition for misuser, excepting to the extent allowed under the
Regulations.
D. Whether the Hon. High Court has completely failed to appreciate Section
28 of the 1957 Act which authorises the doing of any other thing necessary
for the efficient administration of this Act which, it is respectfully
submitted, includes the power to direct sealing of the properties in case of
misuse.
E. Whether the Hon. High Court is in error in holding that the only power
that the authority under the 1957 Act can use is to impose penalty under
Section 29 when there is any contravention of Section 12 or Section 14 of
the said Act or whether in exercise of such power it is open to seal the
properties as well, as has been specifically provided under Section 31A of
the 1957 Act.
F. Whether the construction placed by the Hon. High Court on the provisions
of Sections 29, 30, 31 and 31A are correct in law insofar as it holds that
there is no power in the authorities in exercise of Section 31A to seal a
premises which is being misused. The Hon. High Court appears to have
glossed over that part of Section 31A which provides for sealing for the
purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act.
G. Whether the Hon. High Court has committed an error in similarly
interpreting the provisions of the DMC Act, especially with reference to
Chapter XVI under the heading `Building Regulations'.
H. Whether the Hon. High Court is in error in holding, despite the provision
contained in Section 345A of the DMC Act giving express power to seal
properties, that such power to seal was only with reference to unauthorised
constructions and not with reference to misuser overlooking the provisions
of Section 347 which expressly prohibits the use of any premises for a
purpose other than for which it was sanctioned.
I. Whether the Hon'ble High Court is in error in holding that human rights
/Fundamental rights of persons misusing the property is being violated while
overlooking the fact that citizens who abide by the laws their human rights
and Fundamental rights are being violated and as between the two the law
abiding citizen has to be preferred.
3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2):
The Petitioners state that no other Petition for Special Leave has been
filed by them earlier against the impugned judgment and order dated 31st
May, 2002 in CWP No.4316 of 1994 and this is the only Petition filed against
the said order.
4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6:
N.A.
5. GROUNDS:
Leave to Appeal is being sought on the following among other grounds:
A. That the Hon. High Court has committed an error in holding that the
statutory authorities under the DMC Act, the 1957 Act, the Punjab Municipal
Act, 1911 (as was applicable to the areas of New Delhi) and the New Delhi
Municipal Council Act, 1994 have no power to seal premises which are either
being misused i.e., being used for the purposes other than for which they
were built/ granted sanctioned plans for construction or were being
unauthorisedly constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan and the
Master Plan or in cases where there were encroachments.
B. That the Hon. High Court has committed an error by overlooking a fact
that the authorities under the 1957 Act are required to, as a statutory
obligation, oversee that the development of Delhi takes place in accordance
with the Master Plan framed and formulated under Section 7 of the 1957 Act
inasmuch as the Master Plan defines the various zones into which the Delhi
may be divided for the purpose of development and also indicate the manner
in which the land in each zone is to be used.
C. That the Hon. High Court has committed an error by overlooking that in
view of Section 14 of the 1957 Act, there is a complete bar on any person to
use or permit to be used any land or building otherwise than in conformity
with the Plans. Thus there is a complete bar/prohibition for misuser,
excepting to the extent allowed under the Regulations.
D. That the Hon. High Court has completely failed to appreciate Section 28
of the 1957 Act which authorises the doing of any other thing necessary for
the efficient administration of this Act which, it is respectfully
submitted, includes the power to direct sealing of the properties in case of
misuse.
E. That the Hon. High Court is in error in holding that the only power that
the authority under the 1957 Act can use is to impose penalty under Section
29 when there is any contravention of Section 12 or Section 14 of the said
Act completely ignoring that in exercise of such power it is open to seal
the properties as well, as has been specifically provided under Section 31A
of the 1957 Act.
F. That the construction placed by the Hon. High Court on the provisions of
Sections 29, 30, 31 and 31A is not correct in law insofar as it holds that
there is no power in the authorities in exercise of Section 31A to seal a
premises which is being misused. The Hon. High Court appears to have
glossed over that part of Section 31A which provides for sealing for the
purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act.
G. That the Hon. High Court has committed an error in similarly
interpreting the provisions of the DMC Act, especially with reference to
Chapter XVI under the heading `Building Regulations'.
H. That the Hon. High Court is in error in holding, despite the provision
contained in Section 345A of the DMC Act giving express power to seal
properties, that such power to seal was only with reference to unauthorised
constructions and not with reference to misuser overlooking the provisions
of Section 347 which expressly prohibits the use of any premises for a
purpose other than for which it was sanctioned.
I. That the Hon. High Court has committed an error in holding that the
authorities under the various Municipal Acts of Delhi do not have the power
to seal a premises which is being misused, inter alia, on the ground that a
person could become homeless or that it violates the human rights and
Fundamental Rights of such persons. It is respectfully submitted that what
the Hon. High Court has clearly overlooked in coming to this conclusion is
by giving an example of temporary misuser vis-à-vis cases which are rampant
and can be seen in this City of Delhi and New Delhi where permanent misuser
are being allowed to be continued in connivance with and by encouragement of
the staff of such authorities causing great harm not only to the environment
but to the civic amenities which have been provided, keeping in mind the
user of residence while the user is being made of that of commercial nature.
J. That by restraining the authorities from sealing those premises which
have either been unauthorisedly constructed or have been put to user other
than the purpose for which they were sanctioned, the Hon. High Court has
done disservice to law abiding citizens, not only in Green Park or Green
Park Extension areas but also those residing in other parts of Delhi and New
Delhi,. This would also bad to other law abiding citizens to also follow
suit and pay penalties in line with those who have either unauthorisedly
made constructions or have put their property to use other than the purpose
for which it was sanctioned. It is the respectful submission of the
Petitioners that if the impugned judgment of the Hon. High Court is allowed
to stay, those who have so far been law abiding citizens would be encouraged
to also make constructions unauthorisedly and to put their properties also
to unauthorised use as has been done by those whose specific instances were
there before the Hon. High Court.
K. That by the impugned judgment the Hon. High Court has given a clean chit
to the officials of the authorities concerned, who connived with the law
breakers, whose responsibility was to ensure that the properties are used
for the purpose they have been sanctioned and that there is no unauthorised
construction in their respective areas.
L. That the Hon. High Court has overlooked a very glaring and disturbing
fact that out of 1070 properties inspected only in one residential area by
the officials of the authorities concerned, 539 cases were of those in
which unauthorised constructions had taken place, 174 were of misuser of
the property and 138 cases were those in which the law flouters have applied
to the MCD for regularisation. It is only 20% of those inspected who were
found to be law abiders and whose human rights and Fundamental Rights are
being violated by the rest 80% inhabitants of the Green Park and Green Park
Extension area, but still the Hon. High Court in the judgment impugned
chose to speak of human rights and Fundamental Rights of those who have
flouted the law and not of those who have so far been law abiding and have
been suffering because of those 80%. In the affidavits filed before the
Hon. High Court by the MCD it was pointed out to the Hon'ble Court that
even in cases where unauthorised construction had been demolished, the
residents have again constructed the demolished portion which shows that
many of the inhabitants of Green Park and Green Park Extension area are in
any case bent upon to flout the law.
M. That by holding that the authorities concerned have no power vested in
them to seal the properties which have been found to be either
unauthorisedly constructed or put to user other than for which they were
sanctioned the Hon'ble Court has gone contrary to the legislative intent.
It would never have been the intention of the Legislature to allow those who
have unauthoritisedly construced their properties or have put it to
unauthorised use to continue to enjoy the properties by paying the
penalties.
N. That the Hon. High Court has committed an error in holding that the
sealing of a premises was contrary to human rights and Fundamental Rights
overlooking the fact that the Fundamental Rights and the human rights of
citizens who abide by the laws and who conform to the laws are being
violated by those who do not want to conform to the laws and who do not
abide by the laws. The Full Bench ought to have compared the competing
rights of persons who abide by the law and those who take pleasure in
violating the law and who had to pay certain misuser charges or
regularisation charges in connivance with the authorities, jeopardising the
entire environment and the surroundings of citizens who like to live by the
law.
O. That the Hon. High Court has committed an error in not appreciating the
mandate of the Constitution, specially with reference to Part IXA under the
heading `Municipalities' and the Twelfth Schedule which, inter alia,
includes regulation of land use and construction of buildings, urban
forestry, protection of the environment and promotion of the ecological
aspects, etc. etc. It has been expressly provided under Article 243W of
the Constitution under the heading `Powers of Authorities and
Responsibilities of Municipalities' that the powers to be exercised by such
authorities must be such as to enable them to carry out the responsibilities
conferred upon them, including those matters which are listed in the Twelfth
Schedule. It is respectfully submitted that the decision of the Full Bench
is required to be set aside on this ground alone.
6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
That the Petitioners have a very good case and there is every likelihood of
their succeeding before this Hon. Court, especially in view of the fact that
the Petitioners are law abiding citizens of Delhi and those who have been
bent upon to flout the law have been favoured with by the impugned judgment
rendered by the Hon. High Court, which judgment of the Hon. High Court is
being challenged by the Petitioners by way of instant Petition. The
impugned judgment of the Hon. High Court is erroneous for reasons more than
one. Firstly, the Hon. High Court has committed an error in holding that
the statutory authorities under the DMC Act, the 1957 Act, the Punjab
Municipal Act, 1911 (as was applicable to the areas of New Delhi) and the
New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 have no power to seal premises which
are either being misused i.e., being used for the purposes other than for
which they were built/granted sanctioned plans for construction or were
being unauthorisedly constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan and the
Master Plan or in cases where there were encroachments. Secondly, the Hon.
High Court has overlooked the fact that the authorities under the 1957 Act
are required to, as a statutory obligation, oversee that the development of
Delhi takes place in accordance with the Master Plan framed and formulated
under Section 7 of the 1957 Act inasmuch as the Master Plan defines the
various zones into which the Delhi may be divided for the purpose of
development and also indicate the manner in which the land in each zone is
to be used. Thirdly, by restraining the authorities from sealing those
premises which have either been unauthorisedly constructed or have been put
to user other than the purpose for which they were sanctioned, the Hon. High
Court has done disservice to law abiding citizens, not only in Green Park or
Green Park Extension areas but also those residing in other parts of Delhi
and New Delhi. This would also bad to other law abiding citizens to also
follow suit and pay penalties in line with those who have either
unauthorisedly made constructions or have put their property to use other
than the purpose for which it was sanctioned. If the impugned judgment of
the Hon. High Court is not stayed, not only the Petitioners but also the
other law abiding citizens of Delhi will be put to irreparable hardship. It
is, therefore, the respectful submission of the Petitioners that pending the
disposal of the appeal of the Petitioners by this Hon. Court, the judgment
and order impugned of the Hon. High Court in this appeal be stayed.
7. MAIN PRAYER:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to:-
a) grant special leave to appeal against the common and final judgment and
order of the Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated May
31, 2002 in CWP No. 4316 of 1994;
b) pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to:-
a) stay the operation of the common and final judgment and order of the Full
Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated May 31, 2002 in CWP No.
4316 of 1994;
(b) direct the respondent nos. 1 to 5 not to process cases submitted for
regularization of unauthorized constructions and those submitted for
regularization of misuser till the disposal of appeal by this Hon'ble Court;
(c) direct that properties which are being used by respondent nos. 6 to 16
for purposes other than for which they are allowed as per Master Plan be
sealed;
(d) pass an ex-parte order in terms of prayers (a) (b) and (c)above;
(e) pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Drafted on: 19.8.2002 Filed by:
Filed on: 21.8.2002 B. VIJAYALAKSHMI MENON
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS
SETTLED BY :
RANJIT KUMAR,
SENIOR ADVOCATE.
SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
That the present Special Leave Petition arises from a judgment of the Full
Bench of the Delhi High Court which, inter alia, holds that neither the
Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as `the 1957 Act') nor
the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (`the DMC Act' for short) gives
power to seal property of any person for misuser of the premises. The
question referred to the Full Bench was as to whether the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi or the Delhi Development Authority or the New Delhi
Municipal Council could seal the premises in case of a misuser. It has
been, inter alia, held that a statute providing for sealing of a premises is
a drastic statute by reason of exercise of which power a person could become
homeless thus affecting the basic human rights or the Fundamental Rights
conferred upon a person. The Full Bench of the Hon. High Court is of the
view that the power to be exercised in relation to misuse has been
intentionally excluded from the operation of the relevant provisions under
the DMC Act and the 1957 Act and that only penal provisions can be taken
recourse to and that the same would not include sealing of the premises.
The Full Bench was of the view that the power to seal is like an additional
punishment over and above the action taken under the penal provisions and,
therefore, such an additional provision should not be inferred or read into
from the provisions of the DMC Act and the 1957 Act with reference to power
to seal.
It is the respectful submission of the Petitioners that if a property is
being misused or is being used in a manner which is contrary to the Master
Plan, the Zonal Development Plan and the Zonal Regulations or the Building
Bye-Laws and if like in a residential area a premises is being used for
commercial purpose which amounts to a misuse of a property, it is clearly in
violation and breach of the law and the power to seal such premises because
of the misuser, apart from other penal action that can be taken, is
prescribed under the law and the judgment of the Full Bench is incorrect and
required to be set aside. If the authorities can continue to allow such
misuser without there being a power to seal the premises, the person who
misuses the property would continue to do so without any deterrent action
and all that he may be required to give in that circumstance is certain
misuser charges which a person may be very happy to pay considering the
nature of the commercial activity carried out in a residential area.
1957 The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and the Delhi Development Act were
enacted.
1958 The residential colony of Green Park was developed.
1983 Unified Building Bye-Laws drawn and made applicable to the Union
Territory of Delhi.
1993 Unauthorised constructions started in large scale.
10.6.93/20.7.93/20.8.93 Letters were written to the MCD intimating about
illegal and unauthorised constructions and misuser and the consequent
violation of the Master Plan, etc. Since the authorities failed to carry
out their statutory obligations, the Writ Petition was filed.
October, 1994 The Petitioners in the instant Special Leave Petition are
persons who had filed a writ petition before the Hon. High Court being
residents of Green Park Extension which is planned developed and established
residential colony, as per the Layout of the Master Plan of Delhi. They had
complained before the Delhi High Court by way of a writ petition being
C.W.P. No. 4316 of 1994 as to how the Building Bye-Laws were being violated
and there was misuse and unauthorised use of the residential premises for
commercial purposes carried out in the residential colonies with specific
instances having been cited and the complaint was the total inaction on the
part of the Government authorities in stopping such misuse or violations
and, in fact, going to the extent of encouraging or conniving with persons
who were indulging in such unauthorised constructions or in misuse of the
premises. It was complained that the respondents were not carrying out
their statutory duties in stopping such misuse and thus a writ of mandamus
was required commanding the respondent - authorities not to allow any
illegal commercial user or unauthorised construction and for a direction to
take appropriate action in accordance with law. It was specifically
complained that by the inaction or by the acts of omission and commission of
the authorities, the environment in the residential colony was being totally
polluted and the civic amenities were being jeopardised because of the
misuser.
19.10.1994 The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was pleased to issue
notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the petition be not
admitted.
April, 1995 In the show-cause reply filed by the MCD before the Hon. High
Court, the MCD admitted that there were violations insofar as the premises
of which examples had been given in the writ petition and that show-cause
notices under the DMC Act had been given to such persons and that the
Corporation was doing its best to prevent encroachments on public land.
September, 1995 In the affidavit filed by the Delhi Development Authority
(DDA) before the Hon. High Court, it was, inter alia, averred that the writ
petition hardly disclosed any cause of action against the DDA. It was
stated that the DDA can take action against the defaulters who are misusing
residential premises for use other than residence. The DDA admitted that
the Petitioner had pointed out a few cases where residential houses were
being put to misuse and that the DDA had initiated action against such
persons. The dates of notices issued and actions taken against those
misusers would show that they were taken only after the writ petition had
been filed and notice issued in the writ petition.
Affidavits were also filed by the added respondents who were misusing the
premises, inter alia, stating that the activity which they were doing did
not amount to misuse while admitting that offices were being run and that
show cause notices issued to them by the authorities were being replied to,
etc.
19.10.1995 The Division Bench of the Hon. High Court directed the MCD and
the DDA to proceed in accordance with law against the unauthorised
constructions and further directed that responsible officers of the
authorities should file affidavit reporting compliance and progress in the
matter and action taken.
4th March, 1997 MCD filed its affidavit with reference to the properties of
which examples had been given, inter alia, stating the action taken to the
effect that owners had been booked with reference to unauthorised
constructions and also disclosing that despite demolition, there were owners
who had again constructed the demolished portion and that action was again
being taken.
25th April, 1997 The DDA filed a further affidavit stating that it had
initiated action under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the 1957 Act
against the defaulters who were using residential premises for purposes
other than residential.
14th October, 1997 A Division Bench of the Hon. High Court found on a
perusal of the record how encroachments had been taking place on public
road, the area thereunder was being misused and there was illegal
construction in Blocks U and E of Green Park Extension. The action to be
taken on such encroachments, illegal constructions and misuse was sought
from the authority.
10th December, 1998 The MCD filed another affidavit admitting that there
were encroachments existing at the places marked in the sketch and were
being removed.
May, 1999 The MCD filed affidavits that in mass demolition undertaken by the
MCD officials, encroachments on the right of way had been removed.
March, 2000 Pursuant to the order of the Hon. High Court dated February 16,
2000, the MCD submitted a status report in respect of the properties in
Green Park and Green Park Extension and stated that in an extensive survey
conducted by the MCD staff it was found that user of the properties within
the area of Green Park and Green Park Extension had been changed and,
therefore, fresh prosecution had been initiated and that fresh action had
also been taken with reference to unauthorised constructions and consequent
demolitions. In the Chart annexed as a part of the Survey Report which
consisted of approximately 663 properties in Green Park Main and 407
properties in Green Park Extension, it was found that many premises were
being used as commercial or partly commercial and that in many cases
applications for regularisations had been submitted which was under process
(it is the submission of the Petitioners that their applications for
regularisation is itself contrary to the law).
5th April, 2000 A Division Bench of the Hon. High Court noted in its order
that out of 1070 properties inspected, unauthorised construction was found
in 539 properties while the misuser was found in 174 properties. In cases
of 138 properties persons concerned had moved for regularisation before the
MCD.
May, 2000 The MCD filed another affidavit before the Hon. High Court giving
details, inter alia, of the mass sealing action taken in accordance with law
with reference to several properties. It was further stated that in quite a
few cases there were stay orders that were passed by various courts in terms
whereof the sealing action of the MCD had been stayed and the MCD also
enclosed therewith several detailed orders passed by the courts, including
the High Court, in suits filed challenging the action of sealing.
12th September, 2000 A Division Bench of the Hon. High Court while noting
progress given in the Status Report issued notice to the Union of India
soliciting the views of the Urban Development Ministry with regard to the
question of unauthorised construction and misuser of the properties.
May 31, 2002 By the impugned common and final judgment the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in CWP No. 4316 of 1994 held that neither the Delhi Development
Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as `the 1957 Act') nor the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (`the DMC Act' for short) gives power to
seal property of any person for misuser of the premises. It has been,
inter alia, held that a statute providing for sealing of a premises is a
drastic statute by reason of exercise of which power a person could become
homeless thus affecting the basic human rights or the Fundamental Rights
conferred upon a person. The Full Bench of the Hon. High Court is of the
view that the power to be exercised in relation to misuse has been
intentionally excluded from the operation of the relevant provisions under
the DMC Act and the 1957 Act and that only penal provisions can be taken
recourse to and that the same would not include sealing of the premises.
The Full Bench was of the view that the power to seal is like an additional
punishment over and above the action taken under the penal provisions and,
therefore, such an additional provision should not be inferred or read into
from the provisions of the DMC Act and the 1957 Act with reference to power
to seal.
Hence this Petition for Special Leave to Appeal.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[Under Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
S.L.P. (C) No. of 2002
(With Prayer for Interim Relief)
IN THE MATTER OF:
D. Bhowmick & Ors. Petitioners
VERSUS
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. Respondents
CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the pleadings
before the Court/Tribunal whose order is challenged and the other documents
relied upon in those proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds
have been taken therein or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. This
Certificate is given on the basis of the instructions given by the
petitioner and whose affidavit is filed in support of the Special Leave
Petition.
Filed by:
Drafted on :19.8.2002
Dated of filing :21.8.2002 MS. VIJAYALAKSHMI MENON
Advocate for the Petitioners
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[Under Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
S.L.P. (C) No. of 2002
(With Prayer for Interim Relief)
(Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the
Judgment and Order dated 31st May, 2002 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in CWP No.4316 of 1994)
IN THE MATTER OF:
D. Bhowmick & Ors. Petitioners
VERSUS
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. Respondents
With
I.A. No. of 2002 Application for
exemption from filing
certified copy of the
impugned order
PAPER -BOOK
(FOR INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE)
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS: MS. VIJAYALAKSHMI MENON
I N D E X
1. Office Report on Limitation.
2. Synopsis and List of Dates & Events
3. Impugned Judgment and Order dated
31st May, 2002 passed by the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in CWP No.4316 of 1994
4. Special Leave Petition along with
Affidavit.
5. Application for exemption from filing
certified copy of the impugned order
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[Under Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
S.L.P. (C) No. of 2002
(With Prayer for Interim Relief)
IN THE MATTER OF:
D. Bhowmick & Ors. Petitioners
VERSUS
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. Respondents
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER
To,
Hon. The Chief Justice of India
And His Companion Justices of
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India.
The Petitioners abovenamed.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. The petitioners have this day filed the captioned Special Leave Petition
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the common and final
judgment and order of the Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
dated May 31, 2002 in CWP No. 4316 of 1994. The Full Bench of the Hon. High
Court while answering the question referred to it as to whether the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi or the Delhi Development Authority or the New
Delhi Municipal Council could seal the premises in case of a misuser, .
disposed of the Writ Petition by, inter alia, holding that neither the
Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as `the 1957 Act') nor
the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (`the DMC Act' for short) gives
power to seal property of any person for misuser of the premises. It has
been further held that a statute providing for sealing of a premises is a
drastic statute by reason of exercise of which power a person could become
homeless thus affecting the basic human rights or the Fundamental Rights,
conferred upon a person. The Full Bench of the Hon. High Court was of the
view that the power to be exercised in relation to misuse has been
intentionally excluded from the operation of the relevant provisions under
the DMC Act and the 1957 Act and that only penal provisions can be taken
recourse to and that the same would not include sealing of the premises.
The Full Bench was of the view that the power to seal is like an additional
punishment over and above the action taken under the penal provisions and,
therefore, such an additional provision should not be inferred or read into
from the provisions of the DMC Act and the 1957 Act with reference to power
to seal. The High Court held that the power to seal could be excercised
only in cases of ongoing unauthorised construction under Section 31A of the
1957 Act and under Section 345A of the DMC Act. The petitioners crave leave
to refer and rely upon the contents of the captioned Special Leave Petition
and the same as not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
2. That the petitioners have applied for the certified copy of the order
dated 31.5.2002 and till date the same is not ready. Therefore, the
petitioners are filing the ordinary typed copy of the order and prays that
the same may be taken on record and grant exemption to the petitioners from
filing the certified copy.
Under the facts and circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(a ) grant exemption to the petitioner from filing the certified copy of
the final order dated 31.5.2002 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
CWP No.4316 of 1994.
(e) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Filed by :
New Delhi MS. VIJAYALAKSHMI MENON
Dated : Advocate for the Petitioners
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[Under Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
S.L.P. (C) No. of 2002
(With Prayer for Interim Relief)
IN THE MATTER OF:
D. Bhowmick & Ors. Petitioners
VERSUS
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. Respondents
REPORT ON LIMITATION
The above Special Leave Petition is within time.
Section Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[Under Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
S.L.P. (C) No. of 2002
(With Prayer for Interim Relief)
IN THE MATTER OF:
D. Bhowmick & Ors. Petitioners
VERSUS
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. Respondents
MEMO OF PARTIES
1. D. Bhowmick,
U-18, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
2. Aniruddha Chatterji,
U-17, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
3. Kunal Mathur,
S/o Shri B.P. Mathur,
U-21, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
4. Mrs. Suman Bhagi,
W/o Mr. R.N. Bhagi,
U-6, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi. . Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Delhi Development Authority,
through its Chairman,
I.N.A., Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi.
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
through the Commissioner,
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110 006.
3. Lt. Governor of Delhi,
through the Coordination Cell,
Delhi Administration,
Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
4. Ministry of Urban Development,
through its Secretary L&DO,
Govt. of India,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
5. Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police Headquarters,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110 002.
6. M/s. Blue Skies Pvt. Ltd.,
Trhough its Director Ms. Indrajit Singh,
U-17, Mezanine Floor, Back Portion,
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
7. Shri Ram Gopal Gupta,
V-6A, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
8. Dr. Saroj Jain,
U-23, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
9. Mr. Babu Lal Gupta,
U-20, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
10. Mr. Des Raj Arora,
T-19, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
11. Sri O.P. Goel,
V-9, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
12. Mr. Ratan Lal,
C/o M/s. Munni Lal Bisawashroop,
72/6, Yusuf Sarai Market,
Arbindo College,
New Delhi-110 016.
13. Sri Banwari Lal Gupta,
V-4, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
14. Ms. Urmila Saxena,
Owner of V-11,
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi and
R/o C-242, Sarojini Nagar Flat,
New Delhi.
15. Mr. S.P. Sabharwal,
Owner of V-13, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
16. Mr. A.K. Singhal,
Owner of U-17, Front Portion
Of Second Floor,
R/o D-245, Sarvodaya Enclave,
New Delhi.
17. M/s. Jasmine Exports,
through its Proprietor S.S. Sarna,
U-17, Basement, Green Park Extn.,
New Delhi-16.
18. Hari Shanker Gupta,
8/4, Yusuf Sarai Market,
Arbindo Marg,
New Delhi-110 016.
19. Buinese India Group Media,
Ist Floor, R/o V-13,
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
20. Lan Eseda Computer,
Ground Floor, V-13,
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
21. Nexus Computers,
U-17, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110 016.
22. Mrs. Anita Bhattacharya,
W/o Bidyut Bhattacharya,
U-17, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
23. Mr. R.D. Dureja,
S/o Shri P.N. Dureja,
R/o U-5, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
24. Mrs. S. Pahwa,
W/o Mr. Pahwa,
U-19, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi.
25. Shri B.N. Chawla,
S/o Late Shri Rai Saheb Jawahar Lal,
V-10, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi. . Respondents
Filed by :
New Delhi Vijayalakshmi Menon
Dated : Advocates for the Petitioners
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. OF 2002
In the matter of:
D. Bhowmick & Ors. . Petitioners
Versus
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. . Respondents
A F F I D A V I T
I, D. Bhowmick son of aged about years resident of
do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :
1. That I am one of the petitioner No.1 in the above case and as such
competent to depose.
2. That I have gone through the contents of accompanying Special Leave
Petition page Nos. to and List of Dates and Events
page Nos. to and state that the contents of para 1
is a matter of record and paras 2, 5 and 6 are based on legal advise
received by me and believed to be correct and para 3 is true to my knowledge
and last para contains prayer to this Hon'ble Court.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :
Verified that the contents of paras 1 to 3 of the above affidavit are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and no part of it is false and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Verified at on day of August, 2002.
DEPONENT
----- Original Message -----
From: Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 1:57 PM
Subject: [mpisgplanner] Kahyap caught MCD bribe-taker!