Satish Kumar Mann Vs. Mcd and ors.

Satish Kumar Mann vs Mcd and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Delhi Decided May 13, 2009

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/702333

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/702333
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J. and; Neeraj Kishan Kaul, J.
Decided On: May 13, 2009
Case Number: W.P.(C) 8887/2009
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - Proceedings in different forums and courts were initiated by the authorities as well as respondents No.

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Satish Kumar Mann

Advocate J.S. Mann,; Amir Yadav,; A.S. Mann and;

Respondent

Mcd and ors.

Advocate Vikas Sethi, Adv. for R-1 and ; Jyoti Singh, Adv. for R-2/GNCTD

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226
Cases Referred: Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal
Reported In: 165(2009)DLT11

Excerpt

- - proceedings in different forums and courts were initiated by the authorities as well as respondents no......16:40:40 +05'30' reason: location: canal. it was also alleged that sukh lal mann (respondent no. 7 herein) had encroached upon the metalled road adjoining his house. proceedings in different forums and courts were initiated by the authorities as well as respondents no. 6 and 7. a number of these proceedings are still pending. the petitioner has, inter alia, sought directions including a writ of mandamus to direct the mcd to take appropriate steps and file proceedings against the orders passed in suit no. s-170/08/03 as also a mandamus against the police authorities to initiate criminal proceedings against respondent no. 6 and 7.2. given the nature of disputes raised in the present petition as also the fact that proceedings are pending in various forums/courts, we do not think that the controversy raised here in this petition can be the subject matter of a public interest litigation. public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection as held by the supreme court in ashok kumar pandey v. state of west bengal : air 2004 sc280 .3. in view of the nature of allegations made in the petition, we do not think this is an appropriate case for us to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india. needless to say that it is open for the petitioner to pursue his remedies in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.4. in view of what is stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. all pending applications also stand disposed of.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The present petition, styled as a Public Interest Litigation, has been filed alleging that big quantity of drainage/rainwater is collected and stinking in village Naya Bans and the authorities were not doing anything about the same. Police assistance was also sought from the SHO of Police Station Narela for restraining the mischievous persons from blocking the passage. The petitioner, on behalf of the villagers, made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, MCD, Narela zone intimating about the unauthorized blockage of the canal by respondent No. 7. It is also alleged that Respondent No. 6, under the garb of Abadi Deh Certificate, got the total area of his house mentioned as 816 Sq.Yds. in collusion with the revenue staff though the abadi deh certificate is not meant to disclose or certify the length of boundaries and demarcation of impugned house. The petitioner claims that applications were made by him on behalf of the villagers to have the unauthorized encroachment removed and complete the construction work of the (Signer's identity unknown) Signed by Naresh Mehta Time: 2009.05.18 16:40:40 +05'30' Reason: Location: canal. It was also alleged that Sukh Lal Mann (respondent No. 7 herein) had encroached upon the metalled road adjoining his house. Proceedings in different forums and courts were initiated by the authorities as well as respondents No. 6 and 7. A number of these proceedings are still pending. The petitioner has, inter alia, sought directions including a writ of mandamus to direct the MCD to take appropriate steps and file proceedings against the orders passed in Suit No. S-170/08/03 as also a mandamus against the police authorities to initiate criminal proceedings against respondent No. 6 and 7.

2. Given the nature of disputes raised in the present petition as also the fact that proceedings are pending in various forums/courts, we do not think that the controversy raised here in this petition can be the subject matter of a public interest litigation. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection as held by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal : AIR 2004 SC280 .

3. In view of the nature of allegations made in the petition, we do not think this is an appropriate case for us to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Needless to say that it is open for the petitioner to pursue his remedies in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.

4. In view of what is stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2009 Same Parties Satish Kumar Mann vs Mcd and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J. and; Neeraj Kishan Kaul, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226

Civil