AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.N. Patel, CJ
When the matter is called out nobody appears for the petitioner.
This petition has been preferred with the following prayers:-
“a) Direct the Respondent No.3 to take the necessary action for removal of the illegal running of Restaurant-cum-Bar.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order or direction to the Respondent no. 3 to submit the status report in respect
9A, 123 & 133 Hauz Khas Village, New Delhi.
c) Direct the Respondent No, 3 to initiate appropriate action against the Respondent. No. 1 & 2 for not to run the illegal Restaurant-cum-
Bar; and
d) Direct the Respondent no. 3 to seal the property bearing no. 9A, 12B and 13B permanent for misusing the premises by running restaurant
& Bar without obtaining permission from competent Authority.
e) Pass any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, and proper in the interest of Justice.â€
We have heard the counsel appearing for respondent No.3 â€" South Delhi Municipal Corporation as well as counsel for respondent No.1 against
whom all allegations have been levelled in this writ petition about so-called illegal construction and for removal of the restaurant-cum-bar of
respondent No.1.
Counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that neither there is any illegality in the construction nor in the usage of the property in question by
respondent No.1. It is further submitted by the counsel for respondent No.1 that earlier also the very same petitioner has preferred W.P.(C)
No.4409/2015 which was finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 20.07.2016. Thus, for the very same purpose this writ petition has been
preferred which is not permissible in the eyes of law.
Looking to the prayers of this petitioner regarding removal of so-called illegal restaurant-cum-bar owned/occupied by respondent No.1. It appears
that no such order can be passed by this Court without there being any cogent and convincing evidences on record. It also appears that previously also
this very petitioner has preferred W.P.(C) 4409/2015 which was disposed of vide order dated 20.07.2016. Nonetheless, we hereby direct respondent
No.3 to arrive at a conclusion about legality or otherwise of the construction of respondent No.1 as pointed out by this petitioner after giving an
adequate opportunity of being heard to respondent No.1 and if it is found to be illegal, action in accordance with law, rules, regulations and
Government policy applicable to the facts of the present case shall be taken by the respondent No.3 as early as possible and practicable.
With these observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.