Aakash Mishra & Anr v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

ORDER %

08.10.2010

¶1The petitioners havepreferredtwo appealsbeforethe Administrator, W.P.(C) 6926-27/2010 lof4 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. I. Delhi againstthe dismissalof their two appealsby the AppellateTribunal, MCD againstthe orders of sealing and demolitionwith respectto second floor of Flat No.21, EmpireEstate,M.G. Road, Sultanpur,New Delhi. The said appealswere listedfor hearingbeforethe Administrator,Delhi on 16^*" September,2010 andhavebeenadjouriiedfor hearingto 27^^ October,2010. Thoughthe petitionershad also filed an applicationfor interimreliefbefore the Administrator, Delhi but since the Administrator was not held hearing on 16^^ September,2010, no orderswere made on the said applicationsalso. The petitionershave now preferredthese writ petitionsfor restrainingthe respondent MCD from taking any action of sealing or demolition with ^ respectto the propertyaforesaidduringthe pendencyofappealsbeforethe Administrator, Delhi.

¶2The action against the petitionersis being taken, also in pursuanceto ^ the directions contained in the order dated 16^^ July, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.14180/2009 filed by the Residents Welfare Association of Empire Estate, Sultanpur,New Delhi. The petitionerin that writ petitionalso had sought restraint against the respondentMCD on the ground then of the appealsofthepetitionerspendingbeforethe AppellateTribunal,MCD. The W.P.(C)6926-27/2010 P''ge2of4 J said requestwas declinedvide orderdated 16^*^ July, 2010. The petitioners preferred intra Court appeal being LPA No.554/2010 and the Division Benchof this Courtvide orderdated6^^" August,2010 directedstatusquo to be maintained till the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, MCD and also directedthe AppellateTribunal,MCD to disposeof the appealsby the end of August, 2010.

¶3The counsel for the respondentMCD appearing on advance notice contends that the petitioners have no case in appeals before the Administrator, Delhi and are not entitled to any interim relief

¶4However, since the Division Bench of this Court had granted protectionto the petitionersduring the pendency of appeals before the AppellateTribunal,MCD and the appeals before the Administrator,Delhi are extensionthereof, it is deemed expedientto extend the said order of the Division Bench till the decision of the appeals or the applications for interim relief by the Administrator,Delhi but subject to the condition that the petitionersshallnottake any adjournmentonwhatsoevergroundsbeforethe Administrator,Delhi and if the petitionerstake any adjournment,this order W.P.(C)6926-27/2010 ^°f'* J of interimprotection,shall automaticallystandvacatedand the respondent MCD will then be entitled to take action of sealing/demolition in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are disposed of No order as to costs. CM No.13710/2010 (for exemptionl in W.P. (C) No.6926/2010 & CM No.13712/2010 (for exemption^ in W.P.fCl No.6927/2010. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. Copy of this order be given Dasti under the signatureof the Court Master. OCTOBER 08, 2010 bs.. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J W.p.(C) 6926-27/2010

5b&51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)6926/2010&CM No.13709/2010(u/S 151 CPC for stay) AAKASH MISHRA & ANR. Petitioners Through: Mr. A. Maitri, Adv. Versus 4, MUNICIPALCORPORATIONOF DELHI Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Arora, Mr. Kapil Dutta & Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocates for MCD. AND + W.P.(C)6927/2010& CMNo.13711/2010(u/S 151 CPCfor stay) AAKASH MISHRA & ANR. Petitioners Through: Mr. A. Maitri, Adv. Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Arora,Mr. Kapil Dutta & Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocates for MCD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O