Shahzad Ali vs State (NCT of Delhi)

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
D.N. Patel, Jyoti Singh, JJ.
Shahzad Ali - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3380 of 2022
Decided On : 24-02-2022

Important Points

The court emphasized the need for proper grievance redressal regarding alleged illegal construction, aligning with decisions made in precedent cases.

Subject

Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction

Headnote

(A) Writ Petition - Authority to intervene in construction grievances - Similar writ petition disposed of with directions to address grievances regarding illegal construction - Court refrains from entertaining new petition based on precedent. (Paras 4-6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought similar directions as in a previous case regarding illegal construction.

Findings of Court:
The court emphasized the necessity for respondents to address grievances raised by the petitioner, ensuring opportunities for all stakeholders.

Issues: Whether to entertain the present petition given a similar case had already been decided.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that similar grievances should be addressed based on precedential directions, reiterating the need for a fair hearing to all parties involved.

Result: Writ petition disposed of.

Table of Content
1. writ petition exemption allowed. (Para 2 , 3)
2. similar previous case supports petition. (Para 4)
3. respondents to investigate grievances. (Para 5 , 6)
4. writ petition disposed. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

D.N. Patel, C.J. (ORAL)--Proceedings have been conducted through video conferencing.

CM APPL. 9876/2022 (Exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3380/2022

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, at the outset, submits that a similar writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3332/2022 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.02.2022, wherein certain directions were passed and urges that similar directions be passed in the present writ petition.

5. Since we have disposed of a similar writ petition, as aforementioned, we see no reason to entertain the present petition. Suffice it would be to reiterate that the concerned Respondents shall look into the grievances raised by the present Petitioner with regard to the alleged illegal construction and the decision shall be taken after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the stake-holders including the Petitioner herein.

6. Needless to state that in case the Respondents come to a conclusion that the construction in question is illegal or unauthorised, necessary action shall be taken in accordance with law.

7. With these observations, this writ petition is hereby disposed of.