Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the fact that his documents were not considered solely on the ground that some of the documents i.e. lease deeds were unregistered, he submits that the order passed by the Assistant Engineer dated 21.09.2020 was in breach of principles of natural justice, in as much as, the officer who granted a hearing to the petitioner on 20.02.2019 is not the officer who has passed the order and the officer who has passed the order is not the one who even heard the petitioner at any point of time during the said proceedings.
4. Since the officer who had heard the petitioner is not the one who had passed the order and the officer who has passed the order is not the onewho even heard the petitioner, prima facie, I am of the view that this order is not sustainable.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CM(M) 500/2020
SUDESH KUMAR Vs SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
CORAM:- SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Judgment delivered on: 22.12.2020
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner impugns order dated 05.10.2020 whereby the application
of the petitioner for grant of interim stay pending his appeal under Section
343(2) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 against the order of
demolition dated 21.09.2020 was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the fact
that his documents were not considered solely on the ground that some of
the documents i.e. lease deeds were unregistered, he submits that the order
passed by the Assistant Engineer dated 21.09.2020 was in breach of
principles of natural justice, in as much as, the officer who granted a
hearing to the petitioner on 20.02.2019 is not the officer who has passed the
order and the officer who has passed the order is not the one who even
heard the petitioner at any point of time during the said proceedings.
4. Since the officer who had heard the petitioner is not the one who had
passed the order and the officer who has passed the order is not the one
who even heard the petitioner, prima facie, I am of the view that this order
is not sustainable.
5. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 05.10.2020 passed
by the Appellate Tribunal declining to grant stay during the pendency of the
appeal is not sustainable and, accordingly, is set aside. There shall be stay
of the operation of the demolition order dated 21.09.2020 till the disposal of
the Appeal.
6. However, it would be open to the respondents to withdraw the order
dated 21.09.2020 and pass a fresh speaking order after hearing the
petitioner.
7. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
8. Copy of the judgment be uploaded on the website and be also
forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.
DECEMBER 22, 2020 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
No comments:
Post a Comment