The court emphasized that no party or person can be permitted to act unfairly in respect of a matter pending consideration before a court, particularly when the matter is sub-judice and an appeal is pending at its behest.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

C.M. No. 1273/2018

1. By this order, we proceed to dispose of the aforesaid application. This application has been preferred by the respondent no. 1 DCM Limited (DCM) to seek stay of the sealing of Flatted Factory Complex (FFC) premises of the applicant situated at Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi-110006.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, NDMC passed the sealing order dated 11.01.2018, which demonstrates that the Monitoring Committee (MC) appointed by the Supreme Court issued a letter dated 08.01.2018 to the appellant i.e. North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) to seal the FFC aforesaid before 11.01.2018 and to submit a report on the same to the MC thereafter. In its letter dated 08.01.2018, the MC alleged misuse of the most of the flatted factories “in shape of commercial establishments” which the MC claimed was “against the Sanctioned Building Plan and MPD-1962 and MPD-2021.”

3. In pursuance of the said direction issued by the MC on 09.01.2018 and 10.01.2018, officials of the NDMC along with police officials tried to seal the FFC aforesaid. However, the applicant DCM informed the officials of the appellant NDMC that the matter was sub-judice and pending before this Court and any coercive action taken by the appellant on the premises till the disposal of the aforesaid LPA would tantamount to contempt. The applicant states that the officials of the NDMC, however, did not pay any heed and threatened the applicant to return to the said premises to seal the same.

4. The applicant also states that vide communication dated 10.01.2018 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of NDMC, he was informed of the pendency of the aforesaid LPA, in which arguments have been heard by this bench and judgment reserved on 07.09.2017. Since the NDMC did not relent, the present application has been preferred.

5. The submission of counsel for the applicant DMC is that the present LPA has been preferred by the NDMC to assail the order dated 26.05.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4764/2017. By the impugned order, the said writ petition preferred by the applicant DCM was allowed. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge had set aside the interdiction made by the MC to obstruct the conversion of the user of the FFC aforesaid, from industrial to commercial use in terms of MPD-2021.

6. The submission of the applicant is that the learned Single Judge held that the MC, at the relevant time, did not have the jurisdiction or authority to issue its letter dated 10.01.2017, by which mandatory directions were issued by it to prohibit the conversion of the FFC into a commercial complex on the premise that the DCM was bound to put the FFC for industrial use – as prescribed under MPD-1962 and that it could not seek conversion of the use to “commercial” as provided in MPD-2021. Consequently, the rider put by the NDMC in its order dated 20.04.2017 (by which the representation of the DCM seeking conversion of the FFC from industrial to commercial use in terms of Master Plan for Delhi (MPD) 2021 was considered), was set aside. Thus, it did not lie in the mouth of either the NDMC, or the MC to claim that the user of the FFC for commercial purpose tantamounted to unauthorized use. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal has not been stayed by this Court and the NDMC and MC cannot disregard the same and act contrary thereto.

7. The further submission of counsel for the applicant is that though the Supreme Court in its decision of 15.12.2017 (passed in LA No. 2768/2016) has revived the powers of the MC as they existed prior to 03.01.2012, the same would not authorize either the NDMC or the MC to disregard the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.05.2017 (which is under challenge) and to insist that the FFC is being misused for commercial user in contravention of the MPD 2021 and to order sealing of the FFC, on that premise. Learned counsel submits that by taking the afor