Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Meena Kumari - Appellant
Versus
EDMC - Respondent
CM(M) 584 of 2022
Decided On : 03-06-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court allowed exemption applications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner aggrieved by delay in stay application. (Para 3) |
| 3. stay applications require expeditious handling. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court directs timely resolution of stay application. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. demolition action stayed until decision on application. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. petition disposed of as directed. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT
CM APPL. 28070/2022 (exemption) and CM APPL. 28071/2022 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications stand disposed of.
CM(M) 584/2022 & CM APPL. 28069/2022 (stay)
3. The petitioner, in this petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India is aggrieved by the fact that the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge ("the learned ASCJ") has adjourned an application, filed by the petitioner with Civil Suit 252/2022 (Meena Kumari v. EDMC) seeking stay of the proposed demolition of the petitioner's premises on as many as seven occasions, without taking up the application for decision. In fact, on one occasion, i.e. 28th February, 2022, the earlier learned ASCJ passed the following order:
"28.02.2022
In terms of Hon'ble High Court Order, all the cases listed today are to be taken up through physical mode.
Present: Ms. Shachi Jain., Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Ms. Reena, JLO on behalf of EDMC.
Ms. Reena, JLO, on behalf of EDMC submits that summons of the suit has received through Whatsapp. A Spare copy of the plaint and documents is supplied to the JLO in the court today against acknowledgement.
An urgent prayer is made on behalf of plaintiff for passing orders against the defendant restraining them from undertaking demolition activity. However, today only the JLO has appeared on behalf of the EDMC, and on query of the court she submits that there is no separate authorization in her favour to appear on behalf of the EDMC and to pursue the present case, neither any counsel has been engaged to represent the EDMC.
In such scenario, the court is of the opinion that the JLO is not the proper authorized person to represent the EDMC especially in such matters where public policy and interest of private persons on such a large scale are involved. The EDMC or its concern officer thereof is directed to engage an empaneled counsel in these matters who shall appear and file his vakalatnama on NDOH.
In these circumstances, the urgent prayer made on behalf of plaintiff is kept pending at this stage. Let WS be filed by the NDOH with advance copy to the plaintiff Counsel against acknowledgement.
Be put up for completion of pleading/arguments on 23.03.2022.
Dasti be given to the JLO for compliance."
4. Applications for stay of demolition are required to be taken up expeditiously. In the event that the Court is inhibited from doing so for any valid reason, interim protection ordinarily ought to be granted to the applicant as, once demolition takes place, the situation cannot be reversed and the damage is irreparable.
5. At least in the order dated 28th February, 2022, the learned ASCJ is completely unjustified in "keeping pending" the prayer for stay of demolition, as made by the petitioner, even while acknowledging that the prayer was urgent, merely because the Junior Law Officer (JLO), who appeared for the EDMC, was not an authorised officer.
6. Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, learned Standing Counsel who was present in the Court, appeared in the matter after taking instructions from the Law Officer of the EDMC. He is agreeable to disposal of this petition in the terms that follow.
7. In view of the limited nature of the aforesaid dispute, instead of keeping this petition pending, which may necessitate staying the proceedings before the Court below, the interests of justice would best be subserved if the petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned ASCJ to decide the application for stay of demolition, filed by the petitioner, along with CS 252/2022 (Meena Kumari v. EDMC), in a time bound manner.
8. The parties a
The court highlighted the urgency of resolving stay applications in demolition cases, stressing that such requests must be expedited to prevent irreparable harm.
The court emphasized the need for prompt judicial handling of stay applications in demolition cases to avoid irreversible harm to property, highlighting the urgency of such matters.
The court emphasized the need for timely decisions in demolition cases to prevent irreparable harm, and mandated that authorized legal representation is critical in such proceedings.
The court has the discretion to grant temporary protection from demolition while imposing restrictions and making the continuation of protection subject to the orders of the relevant appellate author....
The court may grant interim protection against demolition orders pending appeals, with conditions on further construction activities to ensure adherence to existing regulations.
A stay on a demolition order can be granted pending appeal, emphasizing the need for functioning appellate mechanisms in administrative law.
Interim protection is warranted to ensure fairness in proceedings when a demolition notice is contested and an appeal is pending.
When a regulatory authority is restrained pending an appeal, a temporary vacancy in the appellate tribunal necessitates direct judicial intervention to enable the parties to seek interim relief; regu....
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
