Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
RWA West Jyoti Nagar - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner EDMC - Respondent
W.P(C) 907 of 2021 & CM Appl. 2414 of 2021
Decided On : 22-01-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges order regarding removal of gates. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments about lack of hearing due to procedural issues. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. court orders a fresh hearing for the petitioner. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. case disposed with further orders issued. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Petitioner impugns order dated 06.01.2021 whereby a finding has been returned by the Executive Engineer of the respondent that the gates installed in the colony are not permitted and has further held that they are liable to be removed.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that subject order was passed pursuant to directions issued by this Court dated 23.12.2020 in W.P(C) 10994/2020, whereby this Court had directed the Corporation to grant a hearing to the resident welfare association and thereafter pass the order.
3. Learned counsel submits that on account of an error only the RWA of West Jyoti Nagar (Extension) was granted a hearing and the petitioner association is RWA West Jyoti Nagar and they were not granted a hearing.
4. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation who submits that since the RWA of West Jyoti Nagar Extension was a party in the said Writ Petition, a hearing was granted to them. He submits that the petitioner association was not a party and as such no hearing was granted to them.
5. He, however, concedes that a fresh hearing shall be granted to the petitioner association and a supplementary order passed with regard to the gates installed in the petitioner colony.
6. In view of the above, petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner association a hearing with regard to the gates installed in their colony and thereafter to pass a speaking order.
7. For the said purposes the representative of the petitioner association shall appear before the Executive Engineer, (M)-III, Shahdara North Zone on 28.01.2021 at 2 PM. The officer shall thereafter hear the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
8. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
9. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.
AI
Administrative bodies must ensure a right to fair hearing as part of procedural justice, particularly when decisions affect stakeholders, or previous directions from the court are not followed.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for permission under the Delhi Municipal Act, 1954, and Guidelines dated 25 June 2007 for the installation of gates on public ro....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the installation of gates should be based on contributions from all farmhouse residents, as directed by the court.
The court addressed the removal of a gate placed illegally, affirming the responsibility of authorities to rectify such actions under Article 226.
Installation of residential security gates must comply with municipal regulations and account for collective security interests of all property residents.
When a petition for contempt is filed alleging non-compliance with prior judicial directions, and the authority has initiated the mandated hearing process, the court may dispose of the petition with ....
Settlement in a land dispute does not entitle a party to construct structures beyond their premises that obstruct public pathways.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
