VIPIN SANGHI
AYODHYA DEVI – Appellant
Versus
DDA – Respondent
1. By this order I proceed to dispose of the preliminary objection raised by the respondent DDA to the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioners are guilty of approaching the Court with unclean hand, resorting to suppression, concealment and misstatement of material facts and abusing the process of the Court. It is also argued that the jurisdiction being exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution being discretionary, on account of the aforesaid conduct of the petitioners, this Court should refuse to exercise its said jurisdiction in the matter and dismiss the writ petition without even going into the merits of the case.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred by 28 individuals against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), respondent No.1 and Kangra Adarsh Cooperative Group Housing Society (respondent No.2) primarily praying for the reliefs that the respondent No.1 i.e. DDA should issue show cause notice, grant personal hearing to each of the petitioners and pass speaking, sealing cum demolition orders before proceeding with the demolition of the unauthorized constructions raised by them, in complianc
Arunima Baruah v. Union of India (2007) 6 SCC 120
Harjeet Singh v. State of Punjab (2002) 1 SCC 649
Prestige Lights Limited v. SBI (2007) 8 SCC 449
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath & Ors. AIR 1994 SC 853
Sanjiv Datta, Dy. Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
Satish Khosla v. Mis Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd. & Anr.
State of U.P. v. Labh Chand (1993) 2 SCC 495
Sukh Ram Gangotia & Others v. DDA & others 2004 (77) DRJ 591
T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapat AIR 1977 SC 2421 : (1977) 4 SCC 467
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.