Back
2011 (2) Supreme 315
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave, JJ.
Brij Mohan — Petitioner
versus
Delhi Development Authority & Anr. — Respondents
Writ Petition(Civil) No. 267 of 2004
Decided on : 10-3-2011
Facts of the Case :
Writ petition was filed by petitioner herein in the instant case with a prayer that the respondents be directed not to demolish his Shop till another shop was given to him in lieu of said shop.
Findings of the Court :
No justifiable reason was stated in the petition on the basis of which the petitioner believed that his shop would be demolished by the respondent-authorities. In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, respondents submitted that at present there was no proposal for demolition of the shop in question and they further assured 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. In view of said assurance given on behalf of respondent-authorities, grievance voiced by the petitioner in the petition held unsustainable. Petition was disposed of
ORDER
Anil R. Dave, J. —
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.
***********
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
