Delhi High Court: In a case wherein, by order dated 04-11-2023, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) was directed to file an affidavit, Prateek Jalan, J., directed MCD to also file the affidavit regarding the manner in which complaints could be made to MCD regarding unauthorized construction in the premises, and if the complaints were made by telephone or personally, whether any record was maintained of such complaints. Further, affidavit was also to be filed regarding how the decisions were made about priority for taking action in respect of such complaints, including the level at which such prioritisation occurs and the factors which informed the decision. The Court also directed MCD to file an affidavit regarding how the identity of the purposed notice determined and what were the modes of service utilised to ensure service of show cause notices.
In an instant case, by order dated 04-11-2023, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) was directed to file an affidavit dealing with the origin of the complaint dated 14-09-2023, whether there was any other complaint received by MCD in respect of the subject property and the reasons for which action was taken only in respect of the basement and second floor of the property, despite finding of unauthorized construction in the ground floor, mezzanine floor and the first floor also. The Court also directed MCD to place on records the documents related to the sanctioned plan and whether any further application for construction was made in regard to the subject property.
MCD had filed an affidavit dealing with some of these aspects, but no explanation was offered regarding why action was taken only in respect of basement and second floor of the property, despite finding of unauthorized construction in the ground floor, mezzanine floor and the first floor. The Court directed MCD to file a further affidavit within two weeks regarding the same.
The Court opined that the facts of the present case also raised some questions regarding the manner in which unauthorized constructions were dealt with and several cases were filed in this Court every week in which it was alleged that MCD had taken no action despite several complaints regarding a particular construction. The Court opined that if a mechanism was not already in place, then it was required to be evolved to ensure that the action was systematic, transparent and even-handed.
Thus, the Court directed MCD to also file the affidavit regarding the manner in which complaints could be made to MCD regarding unauthorized construction in the premises, and if the complaints were made by telephone or personally, whether any record was maintained of such complaints. Further, affidavit was also to be filed regarding how the decisions were made about priority for taking action in respect of such complaints, including the level at which such prioritisation occurs and the factors which informed the decision. The Court also directed MCD to file an affidavit regarding how the identity of the purposed notice determined and the modes of service utilised to ensure service of show cause notices.
The matter would next be listed on 15-12-2023.
[Baby Adira Jatia v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7536, Order dated 10-11-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Manali Singhal, Shreya Singhal, Santosh Sachin and Aanchal Kapoor, Advocates;
For the Respondent: Shubhra Parashar, Deepesh Chaudhary, Virender Pratap Singh, Yash Hari Dixit and Akshay Kumar, Advocates; Tushar Sannu, Standing Counsel with Rajbir Singh, AE Building, MCD Department. Akhil Ranganathan, Proxy Counsel Ishita Agarwal, Advocate; Samar Bansal, Vedant Kapur, Kaustubh Chaturvedi and Madhav Gupta, Advocates
