DDA vs Indian Tube Co. Ltd. and Another

R.S. Sodhi, Adv.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in Case No. 308/1983, dated 17th January, 1984, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents of offence u/s 14 read with Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act.

Despite notice on appeal having been served on the respondents, nobody appears. Brief facts of the case as noted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate are as follows:-

'''' The allegations against the accused persons are that they are using the third-floor of the premises, Sucheta Bhawan, 11-A, Vishnu Digamber Marg, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi, for running an office of M/s. Indian Tube Company Ltd. in contravention of the use of the premises as specified by the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan.''''

It was admitted before the trial court that the plot in which the premises in question was built was allotted through Lok Kalyan Samiti, which organisation has engaged in social and cultural activities. It is also admitted that the accused are running an office of M/s Indian Tube Co. Ltd. The question, Therefore, that arose for consideration was whether use of the premises for the purposes of an office of the company was a social and cultural activity or not.

Counsel for the Delhi Development Authority submits that by no stretch of imagination can a commercial activity of the nature run by the accused be taken to be a social and cultural activity. He refers to a judgment of the Supreme Court in H. Kashinath and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, , where a premises was being used for imparting training and promoting the welfare of film artists. The court in that case held that such an activity are not generally classified as educational, social or cultural activities. He, Therefore, submits that the activities for which the premises in question has been put by M/s Indian Tube Co. Ltd., is violation of the Delhi Development Act as the same is vocative of the Master Plan as also the Zonal Plan.

I have gone through the judgment under challenge with the aid of learned counsel for the Delhi Development Authority and I find that it is the admitted position of parties that the premises in dispute as per Zonal Development Plan, Ex. PW1/K could be used for social and cultural activities only.

Admittedly, the respondents are using the premises for running an office of M/s Indian Tube Co. Ltd. Drawing upon the judgment of the Supreme Court - abovementioned, it can safely be said that the activity of the nature being undertaken by the respondents is not a social and cultural activity as envisaged under the Zonal Development Plan or the Master Plan. Consequently, on admitted facts the respondents are quality of contravening provisions of Section 1 of the Delhi Development Act punishable u/s 29(2) thereof.

In view of the above, I set aside the judgment and order dated 17th January, 1984 and hold the respondents guilty u/s 14 of the Delhi Development Act and sentence them to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- (rupees one thousand) each u/s 29(2) thereof.

CRL.A. 159/1984 is allowed and disposed of.