Judgment:
$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:
22. 02.2018 + W.P.(C) 1703/2018 & C.M. No.7036/2018 C.J.
INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD. ........ Petitioner
Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.H.S. Chandhoke, Ms.Shweta Kakkad, Mr.Shiv Sapra, Ms.Natasha Sood, Ms.Shreya Sethi, Ms.Neha Mehta, Ms.Shruti Sharma & Ms.Deepti Arya, Advs. versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjay Jain, ASG with Ms.Reha Verma, Mr.Yoginder Handoo, Mr.Nishant Kumar, Ms.Puja Kalra & Mr.Virendra Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL) 1. Pursuant to notice issued in the present petition on 21.02.2018, the respondent has entered appearance and submits that in view of the nature of controversy involved in the matter, he does not want to file any counter affidavit and prays that the WP (C) No.1703/2018 Page 1 of 4 cmatter may be heard on the basis of documents already on record.
2. After some arguments, Mr.Sanjay Jain, learned ASG appearing for the respondent, fairly submits that though the petitioner had in response to the show cause notice issued under Section 247 of the NDMC Act, 1994, requested the respondent to provide them the inspection reports and other connected documents but while passing the impugned order dated 21.02.2018, the said request has been overlooked and the impugned order was passed without providing copies of the relevant documents especially the inspection reports to the petitioner. Mr.Jain further submits that though in view of the alternate remedy provided under Section 254 of the NDMC Act, the present petition is not maintainable, but keeping in view the aforesaid factual position whereby despite request, the petitioner was not supplied with the requisite documents, he submits on instructions, that the impugned order dated 21.02.2018 may be treated as withdrawn and fairly submits that the respondent is willing to provide to the petitioner copies of the inspection records and other relevant documents which may be available.
3. It is agreed between the parties that the petitioner would provide a list of the documents sought by them including the inspection reports to the respondent within one day. The respondent would then supply copies of the documents, as are WP (C) No.1703/2018 Page 2 of 4 available with them, failing which they would provide a reply to the petitioner as to why the other documents sought by the petitioner cannot be supplied. Mr.Jain further submits that the copies of the documents/reasons for not providing the documents, as demanded by the petitioner, would be supplied to the petitioner within five days from the date the said request is received by the respondent. The petitioner would then be at liberty to give a detailed response to the show-cause notice dated 19.01.2018 within 10 days from receipt of respondent’s reply/documents and upon consideration of the same, the respondent would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
4. Mr.Jain, learned ASG, submits that some of the contentions raised by learned senior counsel as recorded in this order dated 21.02.2018 are factually incorrect though the same is denied by Mr.Chandhiok. He submits that though the petitioner claims that the interim order has been passed in violation of order dated 18.05.2001, the petitioner itself is in breach of the conditions recorded in the order dated 18.05.2001 and the contention of the petitioner is factually incorrect. In view of the contrary stands taken by the parties, it is clarified that the observations made by the Court in its order dated 21.02.2018 will not bind any of the parties, as the same were only on a prima facie view of the matter and were based on the submissions of learned senior counsel for the petitioner. It is WP (C) No.1703/2018 Page 3 of 4 made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the contentions raised by learned senior counsel for the parties.
5. The impugned order dated 21.02.2018 is accordingly set aside. It is directed that once the respondent supplies the documents/reasons for non-supply of documents to the petitioner, it would be open for the petitioner to submit a reply to the show-cause notice dated 19.01.2018 within 10 days from receipt of respondent’s reply/documents and upon consideration of the same, the respondent would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law.
6. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders to be passed by the respondents, it will be open for the petitioner to take legal recourse as permissible under law.
7. Needless to state that the present order is being passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties on all issues.
8. The petition is disposed of with the above directions. The pending application also stands disposed of. FEBRUARY22 2018/gm (REKHA PALLI) JUDGE WP (C) No.1703/2018 Page 4 of 4