High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 02 DEL CK 0549

C.J. International Hotels Ltd. vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Delhi High Court · Decided on 22 February 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rekha Palli, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 1703 Of 2018, Civil Miscellaneous No. 7036 Of 2018

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

34 paragraphs · 679 words

Rekha Palli, J

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 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order dated 21.02.2018 may be treated as withdrawn and fairly submits that the respondent is willing to provide to the petitioner copies of the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 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 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.