Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Bivas Dey Niyogi - Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 11107 of 2021 & CM. Appls. 34244-45 of 2021
Decided On : 29-09-2021
An NOC granted for construction may be held in abeyance due to ongoing court proceedings only if a stay is issued by the court, highlighting the necessity for a speaking order in administrative decisions.
Headnote:(A) Statutory interpretation regarding the conditions under which a No Objection Certificate (NOC) may be rendered inoperative due to ongoing litigation - The High Court revisited the conditions surrounding the NOC granted for lift installation, notably its abeyance clause linked to court proceedings. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Procedural fairness - The court emphasized the necessity for the respondent to issue a speaking order on the pending representations, ensuring that proper reasons are provided for any decisions made. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to challenge the abeyance of a NOC for installing a lift due to ongoing litigation among flat owners, referencing an earlier stay ordered by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondent to make a decision on the representations within four weeks with a speaking order to be communicated.
Issues: The core issue was whether the NOC should be inoperative due to the ongoing court case and the grounds for keeping it in abeyance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a speaking order is necessary for administrative transparency and fairness, particularly when directives from previous court orders impact the execution of permits.
Result: Petition disposed of with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks order regarding noc for lift installation. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding the status of the noc and litigation context. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court acknowledges notice and condition of stay. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. direction for timely decision on petitioner's representation. (Para 8) |
| 5. petition disposed with provision for remedies. (Para 9 , 10) |
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.
