Skip to content


R K Sharma vs.public Grievance Commission & Ors - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Delhi High Court

Decided On

Appellant

R K Sharma

Respondent

Public Grievance Commission & Ors

Excerpt:


.....which was disposed of by the learned single judge vide order dated 13.02.2019.2. having heard the counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that as per respondent this is a case of unauthorised construction whereas as per this appellant (original petitioner) the respondent is required to decide the legality or otherwise of the lpa1622019 page 1 of 2 construction of the premises in question only after giving him an adequate opportunity of hearing.3. having regard to the submissions made by both the sides and the order dated 26.09.2017 at page 97 of the paper book, which is an order of demolition passed by the respondent no.2 against which an appeal has been preferred and the same is pending before appellate tribunal, m.c.d. wherein stay has already been granted in favour of this appellant by the appellate tribunal m.c.d. (at page no.99 to the memo of this appeal) which is in operation, it appears that appeal is still pending before the tribunal.4. after considering the aforesaid facts of the instant appeal, we direct that the appellate tribunal m.c.d. will decide the case of this appellant on its merits in accordance with.....

Judgment:


$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:

30. 07.2019 + LPA1622019 R K SHARMA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.K.K. Sharma & Mr. Amit Singh Rathore, Advs. versus PUBLIC GRIEVANCE COMMISSION & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS

Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, Adv. for R- 1 Mr. Ajjay Aroraa, Adv. with Mr.Kapil Dutta, Adv. for SDMC/R-2 Mr. Rajat Aneja, Ms. Bhawana Pandey & Mr.Sambit Nanda, Advs. for R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) 1. This appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner in W.P.(C) 1469/2019 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.02.2019.

2. Having heard the counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that as per respondent this is a case of unauthorised construction whereas as per this appellant (original petitioner) the respondent is required to decide the legality or otherwise of the LPA1622019 Page 1 of 2 construction of the premises in question only after giving him an adequate opportunity of hearing.

3. Having regard to the submissions made by both the sides and the order dated 26.09.2017 at page 97 of the paper book, which is an order of demolition passed by the respondent No.2 against which an appeal has been preferred and the same is pending before Appellate Tribunal, M.C.D. wherein stay has already been granted in favour of this appellant by the Appellate Tribunal M.C.D. (at page No.99 to the memo of this appeal) which is in operation, it appears that appeal is still pending before the Tribunal.

4. After considering the aforesaid facts of the instant appeal, we direct that the Appellate Tribunal M.C.D. will decide the case of this appellant on its merits in accordance with law without being influenced by the order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 1469/2019, at the earliest.

5. With the aforesaid observation, we hereby dispose of this appeal. CM APPL.10514/2019 (Stay) 6. In view of the order passed in LPA1622019, the application also stands disposed of. JULY30 2019/ns CHIEF JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR, J LPA1622019 Page 2 of 2




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //