Sushil Sekhri v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors

ORDER o/o

11.11 .2OIL

¶1Amended memo of parties has not been filed by the petitioner in terms of the order dated 29.t1.2010. The same be filed within a week.

¶2The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing of the order dated 09.09.2009 passed by the respondent/MCD rejecting the application of the petitioner for approval of construction of an additional floor at premises No.114, Chitra Vihar, Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. there is no good reason for the petitioner to have directly approached this Court for the reliefs as sought in the present petition, more so, when disputed questions of facts have been raised by the petitioner with regard to the assessment of the structural strength of the building, which factor is necessary to determine as to whether the building would be able to take the load of an additional floor. Such issues ought to have been agitated by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, in the first instance, before approaching this Court.

¶4Be that as it ffidy, the present petition is disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal, MCD for being granted the relief as sought in the present petition. Needless to state that the petitioner shall be at liberty to point out the fact that he had filed the present proceedings in his application before the Appellate Tribunal for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which shall be taken into consideration by the Tribunal while considering the said application. Counsel for the respondent No.4/owner of the ground floor of the subject premises states that he shall not raise any objection on the maintainability of the appeal, if filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD within a reasonable time and subject to the condition that the petitioner shall w.P.(c) 7BB/2010. Page 2 of 3. I take necessary steps to ensure the impleadment of respondent No.4 in the said appeal . ,

¶5Counsel for the petitioner states that he shall ensure the impleadment of respondent No.4 in the appeal, which he proposes to file before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD and that the same shall be filed within two weeks.

¶6In view of the above, the petition is disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner as noted above. NOVEMBER 1T,ZOTL 'anb' w.P.(c) 788/2010. Page 3 of 3. HIMA KOHLI,J

+ ! $-30. * IN THE + w. P. (c) SUSHIL HIGH COURT OF 7BB/20tti. S EKH RI Through: VCTSUS Delhi. 3. Considering the fact that by way of an appeal is available w.P.(c) 788/2010. DELHI AT NEW DELHI ..... Petitioner Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv. an equally efficacious alternate remedy to the petitioner under the DMC Act, Page 1 of 3. M.C.D. AND ORS. ..... Respondents Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Adv. for MCD. Mr. S.K. Tyagi, Adv. for R-4. Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI