M. S. A Siddiqui, J.

( 1 ) BY this order, I propose to decide the following preliminary issue framed on 27. 4. 1998. Whether the suit is maintainable and whether the plaint is liable to be rejected as the plaintiffs are provided with an adequate and equally efficacious alternate remedy under the provisions of Sections 343 and 347 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.

( 2 ) TO appreciate the merits of the controversy, it will be necessary to give brief narration of the material facts. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing and/or sealing the whole or any portion of the property bearing Nos. 1142-1145, Gali Nos. 9 and 10, Abdul Rehman Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi on the allegations that the defendant s threatened action for demolishing and/or sealing a portion of the building in question is violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no predecisional notice was served on the plaintiffs.

( 3 ) THE defendant resisted the suit contending that after obtaining sanction of the plan, the plaintiffs constructed the building in question. On inspection, it was found that certain portion of the building was constructed beyond the sanctioned plan. However, these deviations from the sanctioned plan were compounded under the building bye-laws on payment of requisite compounding fee. Thereafter, the plaintiff raised further unauthorised construction in the building as a result whereof the show cause Notice No. 86387 dated 21st July, 1987 was served on the plaintiffs. Despite service of the notice, the plaintiffs did not stop the unauthorised construction. Resultantly, the demolition order dated 3rd August, 1987 was issued and served on the plaintiffs. It was averred in the written statement that inasmuch as no appeal under Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the act ) was filed against the demolition order, the suit is barred under Section 347-E of the Act and further the suit is also bad for want of a notice under Sections 477/478 of the Act.

( 4 ) AT the outset I must take it clear that neither the show cause notice dated 21st July, 1987 nor the demolition order dated 3. 8. 1987 has been produced before the Court. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs contended that since no pre decisional notice was served on the plaintiffs before issuing the alleged demolition order, the threatened action of demolition of the building in question is violative of the principles of natural justice and so the present suit is maintainable. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD, (1993)3 SCC 161.

( 5 ) FOR the erection of the new building or of re-construction of any building, the procedure is prescribed under Chapter XVI of the Act. Section 331 defines the expression "to erect a building". Section 332 provided that "no person shall erect or commence to erect any building or execute any of the work specified in Section 234 except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner". Section 343 (1) empowers the Commissioner to issue order of demolition of the offending erection work of any building covered by the Act. Section 343 of the Act reads as under :

343. "order of demolition and stoppage of building and works in certain cases and appeal.

(1) Where the erection of any building or execution of any work has been commenced, or is being carried on, or had been completed without or contrary to the sanction REFERRED TO to in Section 336 or in contravention of any condition subject to which such sanction has been accorded or in contravention of any provisions of this Act or bye-laws made thereunder, the Commissioner may, in addition to any other action that may be taken under this Act, make an order directing that such erection work shall be demolished by the person at whose instance the erection or work has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed, within such period (

Click Here to Read the rest of this document