Brij Mohan Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[mukundakam sharma; anil r. dave, jj.] - constitution of india - article 32 - remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this part -- though the petitioner has voiced the aforestated apprehension that the respondents might demolish the shop in question which is in his occupation, there is no justifiable reason stated in the petition on the basis of which the petitioner believes that his shop would be demolished by the respondent- authorities......the petitioner has voiced the aforestated apprehension that the respondents might demolish the shop in question which is in his occupation, there is no justifiable reason stated in the petition on the basis of which the petitioner believes that his shop would be demolished by the respondent- authorities.3. in pursuance of notice issued by this court, the learned advocates appearing for the respondents submitted that at present there is no proposal for demolition of the shop in question and they further assured this court that, except in accordance with the law, neither the petitioner would be evicted from the shop in question nor the shop in question would be demolished.4. in view of the aforestated assurance given on behalf of the respondent-authorities, in our opinion, the.....

Judgment:
O R D E R

1. The petitioner has approached this Court under the provisions of Article 32 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that the respondents be directed not to demolish Shop No. D/4, Peeragarhi Relief Camp, New Delhi-56 till another shop is given to him in lieu of the shop referred to hereinabove.

2. Though the petitioner has voiced the aforestated apprehension that the respondents might demolish the shop in question which is in his occupation, there is no justifiable reason stated in the petition on the basis of which the petitioner believes that his shop would be demolished by the respondent- authorities.

3. In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, the learned advocates appearing for the respondents submitted that at present there is no proposal for demolition of the shop in question and they further assured this Court that, except in accordance with the law, neither the petitioner would be evicted from the shop in question nor the shop in question would be demolished.

4. In view of the aforestated assurance given on behalf of the respondent-authorities, in our opinion, the grievance voiced by the petitioner in the petition would not survive, and therefore, we dispose of this petition with no order as to costs.