The central legal point established is the requirement for substantial evidence to prove the illegality of constructions and the necessity of joining the owners/occupiers of the properties as party respondents in such cases.

JUDGMENT

D.N.Patel, C.J. -

Proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.

C.M.No.7858/2021 (exemptions)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.2653/2021

1. This so called public interest litigation has been preferred with the following prayers:-

"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No.1 to take all actions including demolition action against the properties unauthorizedly constructed mentioned in para 14 above in a time bound manner.

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No. 2 to take demolition and prosecution action against the owners/builders of the unauthorizedly constructed properties mentioned in para 14 above in a time bound manner and take them to logical conclusion.

c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No.3 to disconnect water supply to unauthorized constructed property regarding which request is received from Respondent No.2.

d) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No.4 to disconnect electricity supply to unauthorized constructed property regarding which request is received from Respondent No.2.

e) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No. 5 to ensure that no document whatsoever in respect of properties unauthorizedly constructed mentioned in para 14 is registered.

f) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No.2 to take disciplinary actions against all the officers of South Delhi Municipal Corporation who turned blind eye when the unauthorized construction was being raised and despite making of complaint failed to take demolition, sealing and prosecution action against the unauthorized properties as well as their owners /builders.

g) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No.2 to stop unauthorized construction in the properties unauthorizedly constructed mentioned in para 14 above.

h) Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No.2 to devise mechanism whereby the area Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer maintain daily records of their visits to the area under their supervision and control and taking of disciplinary actions against them, if they fail to notice any property being constructed unauthorizedly.

i) Award cost of the present petition in favour of the Petitioner.

j) Any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the present case may kindly be also passed in favour of the Petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an NGO and is engaged in social work such as feeding poor people. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that this NGO came into existence on 19th November, 2020, and since 10th December, 2020 onwards, the petitioner has been preferring representation via letters to the respondent authorities about the illegal constructions. When this Court put to the counsel for petitioner specific question as to whether the petitioner has ever obtained the building construction plans etc. regarding the alleged illegal constructions in question, the answer is in negative. However the learned counsel for the petitioner state's that the petitioner has enquired from the vicinity of the area in question about the alleged illegality of the buildings situated in the vicinity, which are referred to in paragraph-14 of the memo of this writ petition. Thus, it seems from the submissions from the learned counsel of the petitioner that, this petitioner enquired from the vicinity, i.e., from the neighbours and bye-passers about the illegality of the constructions in question. This is how the inquiry has bee