J U D G M E N T

The petitioners in the instant writ petition seek directions for declaration of the permission granted by respondent no. 1 to respondent no.2 for the use of property bearing property no. G-4, Gurudwara Road, Saket, New Delhi (hereinafter „disputed property‟) in question for commercial/non-residential use as illegal, and to restrain respondent no.2 from using the said property for other than residential purposes.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts necessary for deciding the controversy would reveal that the petitioners are residents of Gurudwara Road (hereinafter „GD Road‟), Saket, New Delhi. They seem to have a grievance with the manner of usage of the disputed property by respondent no.2. The petitioners state that respondent no.2 is running a hotel/guest house on above two floors of the said property by the name of Khanna Residency and has leased out the ground floor to HDFC Bank for running its branch. They also state that the disputed property abuts the 13 meters (40 ft 6 inches) wide road known as Gurudwara Road, Saket, which is different from the main Mehrauli- Badarpur Road (hereinafter „MB Road‟). It is stated that the ground floor of the disputed property cannot be permitted to be let out for operating a bank, and if that be done, the same would be in violation of the criteria laid down in Master Plan of Delhi 2021 (hereinafter „MPD 2021‟). The area in question, that is Block G of Saket, falls under Category C of MPD 2021, where the banks are only permissible on residential plotted development, abutting a road of minimum 18 meters Right of Way (hereinafter „RoW‟). He placed reliance on Chapter 15 of the MPD 2021. The petitioners, therefore, have stated that respondent no.1-Corporation has illegally accorded approval to respondent no.2 for opening a bank on the said premises, by erroneously treating GD Road as a part of MB Road.

3. Respondent no.1-Corporation, by way of Status Report dated 12.01.2016, stated that the disputed property consists of the ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor. The permission for running a guest house on the first floor, second floor, and third floor was granted by the Building Department, South Zone, vide order dated 13.07.2004, and a permission/NOC for running a bank on the ground floor was issued by the Building Department on 10.10.2014, after realizing requisite charges. As per the Status Report, respondent no.1- Corporation justified operation of the bank and guest house stating therein that MPD 2021 permits banks to be operated in C and D colonies under the head of „Other Activity‟ requiring 18 meters RoW in regular residential plotted development and 13.5 meters RoW in rehabilitation colonies and 9 meters RoW in regularized-unauthorized colonies, resettlement colonies, walled city, special area and urban villages and in pedestrian shopping streets (of less than 6 meters RoW). It is further stated that as per the Town Planning Department, the plot in question abuts within 250 feet of RoW.

4. Respondent no.2, while filing reply to the writ petition, opposed the petition and stated that the petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. A submission is made in his reply that the petitioners have selectively targeted respondent no.2 and have failed to raise any grievance with respect to similar activities on the same road. The disputed property is claimed to have been situated abutting main MB Road which has 250 feet RoW.

5. The petitioners in their rejoinder have opposed the claims made in the counter-affidavit and have stated that the other properties in question are not in the nature of commercial operation under the MPD 2021, but fall under professional activities and thus, no grievance arises.

6. The petitioners also highlighted that there is no 18 meters continuous RoW for the disputed property as required under MPD 2021 for running commercial businesses from a residential colony. They state that as per the directions of the National Gre