Malik Sharief-Ud Din

( 1 ) ON 14th January 1985 this petition was listed at No. 6. Earlier when this petition came to be admitted the court also had directed early hearing. Obviously, it was done at the request of the counsel for the petitioner. On 15th January 1985, the petition was listed at No. I but since the petitioner s counsel failed to turn up it was again listed. Unfortunately, even today, neither the petitioner nor his counsel has appeared. In these circumstances I have heard Mr. Makhija, counsel for Delhi Development Act.

( 2 ) THE controversy in this petition falls within a very narrow compass in as much as the grievance of the petitioner is that he was earlier also prosecuted on the basis of the same set of facts and under the same Act for the same offences in respect of the same premises before Shri M. L. Sahni, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, which case was dismissed and in which case he was acquitted on 26-8-1982. The respondent, however, initiated fresh prosecution against the petitioner in respect of the same premises under sections 14 and 29 of the Delhi Development Act 1957 and the allegation against the respondent is that he has permitted the premises, building

Click Here to Read the rest of this document