Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
D.N.PATEL, JASMEET SINGH
Prerna Ek Disha Foundation – Appellant
Versus
Chairman Special Task Force – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. public interest litigation and mandates. (Para 4) |
| 2. petitioner's claims lack substantive evidence. (Para 5) |
| 3. court's skepticism about petitioner's intent. (Para 6) |
| 4. dismissal with costs and purpose. (Para 7) |
| 5. compliance and procedural follow-up. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
D.N.Patel, Chief Justice (Oral)
1. Proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.
C.M.No.7858/2021 (exemptions)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
3. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.2653/2021
4. 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, o
A public interest litigation must be substantiated with credible evidence and involve necessary parties; failure to do so may result in dismissal.
Public Interest Litigation requires proper standing and evidence; a petitioner must join affected parties and cannot solely rely on hearsay.
Public interest litigation is not applicable when targeting a specific property owned by an individual, and separate legal actions must be pursued for such disputes.
Proof of illegality in construction must be supported by substantive evidence; mere presence of construction materials is insufficient.
Lack of evidence, ground work, and public interest element in a public interest litigation may lead to the dismissal of the petition and imposition of costs on the petitioner.
Writ jurisdiction is not suitable for adjudicating disputed questions of fact regarding legality of construction; appropriate remedies must be pursued instead.
Demolition of unauthorized constructions requires due process, including the right to be heard for affected owners/occupiers.
The court directed authorities to address grievances regarding illegal construction and emphasized accountability in compliance with laws and regulations.
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
