Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Bivas Dey Niyogi & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 11107/2021 & CM. Appls. 34244-45/2021
Decided On : 29-09-2021
Mr. Samir Sagar Vasishta and Mr. Nachiketa Suri, Advocates, for the Petitioner; Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Standing Counsel with Mr. Kamal R. Digpaul, Advocate, for the Respondent
The court emphasized the importance of a speaking order and directed the respondent to decide the representations within a specified timeframe.
Headnote:
NOC - Installation of Lift - The court directed the respondent to decide the representations of the petitioner and keep the NOC in abeyance until a speaking order is issued.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent to decide representations and keep the NOC in abeyance for the installation of a lift due to ongoing litigation with other flat owners.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondent to decide the representations of the petitioner within four weeks and keep the NOC in abeyance until a speaking order is issued.
Issues: Dispute over the installation of a lift due to ongoing litigation and the interpretation of the conditions for keeping the permission in abeyance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a speaking order on the representations and directed the respondent to decide the matter within a specified timeframe.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondent to decide the representations and keep the NOC in abeyance until a speaking order is issued.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - CM Appl. 34245/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 11107/2021 & CM Appl. 34244/2021 (for stay)
1. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to decide the representations dated 09.08.2021 and 23.09.2021 of the petitioner and keep in abeyance the NOC dated 30.09.2016, granted by it to the petitioner for construction and installation of a lift.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by letter dated 30.09.2016, respondent had granted NOC for installation of a common lift in the subject property. The permission was valid for a period of five years.
3. He submits that clause 4 provides that in case of any court case, NOC granted by the SDMC would become inoperative and would be kept in abeyance till final outcome of the court case.
4. Learned counsel further submits that there is a litigation with other flat owners on account of which a letter dated 20.06.2018, issued by the Assistant Engineer of the respondent, referring to a civil Suit between the flat owners, directed that the resumption of work relating to installation of lift would be subject to further order or granting of stay by the Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a direction by the High Court in FAO 496/2018, Jagmohan Chopra & Anr. Vs. SDMC & Ors., directing status quo to be maintained because of which the work could not be carried on.
6. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there was a corrigendum to the original policy and the condition for keeping the permission in abeyance is not merely filing of a court case but a stay being granted by a court of law. He, however, admits that in the present case there is a stay granted.
8. Since the prayer B and C sought for by the petitioner are consequential to prayer A, it is deemed expedient to dispose of the petition by directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 09.08.2021 and 23.09.2021 by a speaking order, preferably within a period of four weeks from today.
9. The speaking order shall also be communicated to the petitioner. It would be open to the petitioner to avail of his remedies, in case petitioner is aggrieved by the speaking order. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
10. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
