IN THE HIGH COURT OF
DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CONT.CAS(C) 890/2011
VIRAT COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD and ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr Raj Panjwani, Sr. Adv. with Mr Aditya Shamlal, Adv.
versus
COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI and ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Parvinder Chauhan, Adv. for R-1.
Ms Mini Pushkarna and Ms Prerna Varma, Advs. For Resp./MCD with Mr. S.S.
Gill, Asstt. Commissioner, Rohini Zone, MCD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R
27.07.2012
By this contempt petition, compliance is sought of the order dated 11.02.2009. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner says that more than three years have passed and to date there has been no compliance. Learned counsel has taken me through the order dated 09.02.2011 which demonstrates the sloth which the respondents have displayed in complying with the order. As a matter of fact as recently as on 16.02.2012 my predecessor had once again granted them six weeks to remove the encroachments, which are subject matter of the present contempt petition. Instead of removing the encroachments the respondents have filed an additional affidavit dated 20.07.2012 giving their stand as to why encroachments had not been removed. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that this is one of those cases where the respondents have just refused to abide by the orders of the court and have in a sense cocked a snook at the court.
Ms Pushkaran, on the other hand submits that since there were representations on behalf of the people who reside in the JJ Cluster, near the petitioner s society, there has been this delay in implementing the orders of this court.
One of the reasons that Ms Pushkarna has indicated is the lack of decision on the rehabilitation of the residents of the JJ Cluster. Ms Pushkaran, at present says, that now, a decision has been taken to remove the encroachments irrespective of whether or not respondents are able to find a suitable place for relocating the encroachers. She seeks time till 30.09.2012, in view of the rainy season, and says that, the needful
will be done on or before 30.09.2012.
I am of the view that the respondents have in a sense committed contempt not once but several times over. The only reason that I have stopped short of taking punitive action against the respondents is the apparent lack of resources of the people residing in the JJ Cluster.
Notwithstanding the above difficulty, it is ultimately the duty of the State to rehabilitate and relocate people residing in JJ cluster and at the same time ensure that there is complete compliance of the orders of the court. The State is not bereft of resources.
Taking into account what Ms Pushkarna has stated before me, which is that, some time may be granted on account of the ensuing rainy season, I defer orders in the captioned contempt petition till after 30.09.2012.
In case the needful is not done by that date, the respondents shall remain present in court for further action in the matter. I am informed that the present incumbent
in the office of the Commissioner of MCD is Mr P.K. Gupta; this duly taken note of. This order should be brought to the notice of the Hon ble Lt. Governor, GNCT of Delhi, as well.
List on 19.10.2012.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JULY 27, 2012
CONT.CAS(C) 890/2011
VIRAT COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD and ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr Raj Panjwani, Sr. Adv. with Mr Aditya Shamlal, Adv.
versus
COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI and ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Parvinder Chauhan, Adv. for R-1.
Ms Mini Pushkarna and Ms Prerna Varma, Advs. For Resp./MCD with Mr. S.S.
Gill, Asstt. Commissioner, Rohini Zone, MCD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R
27.07.2012
By this contempt petition, compliance is sought of the order dated 11.02.2009. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner says that more than three years have passed and to date there has been no compliance. Learned counsel has taken me through the order dated 09.02.2011 which demonstrates the sloth which the respondents have displayed in complying with the order. As a matter of fact as recently as on 16.02.2012 my predecessor had once again granted them six weeks to remove the encroachments, which are subject matter of the present contempt petition. Instead of removing the encroachments the respondents have filed an additional affidavit dated 20.07.2012 giving their stand as to why encroachments had not been removed. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that this is one of those cases where the respondents have just refused to abide by the orders of the court and have in a sense cocked a snook at the court.
Ms Pushkaran, on the other hand submits that since there were representations on behalf of the people who reside in the JJ Cluster, near the petitioner s society, there has been this delay in implementing the orders of this court.
One of the reasons that Ms Pushkarna has indicated is the lack of decision on the rehabilitation of the residents of the JJ Cluster. Ms Pushkaran, at present says, that now, a decision has been taken to remove the encroachments irrespective of whether or not respondents are able to find a suitable place for relocating the encroachers. She seeks time till 30.09.2012, in view of the rainy season, and says that, the needful
will be done on or before 30.09.2012.
I am of the view that the respondents have in a sense committed contempt not once but several times over. The only reason that I have stopped short of taking punitive action against the respondents is the apparent lack of resources of the people residing in the JJ Cluster.
Notwithstanding the above difficulty, it is ultimately the duty of the State to rehabilitate and relocate people residing in JJ cluster and at the same time ensure that there is complete compliance of the orders of the court. The State is not bereft of resources.
Taking into account what Ms Pushkarna has stated before me, which is that, some time may be granted on account of the ensuing rainy season, I defer orders in the captioned contempt petition till after 30.09.2012.
In case the needful is not done by that date, the respondents shall remain present in court for further action in the matter. I am informed that the present incumbent
in the office of the Commissioner of MCD is Mr P.K. Gupta; this duly taken note of. This order should be brought to the notice of the Hon ble Lt. Governor, GNCT of Delhi, as well.
List on 19.10.2012.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JULY 27, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CONT.CAS(C) 890/2011
VIRAT COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY
LTD and ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raj Panjwani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Shamlal,
Advocates.
versus
COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF
DELHI and ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Usha Saxena for R-1
Ms.Prerna Verma for Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Advocate for MCD.
Ms. Gayatri Verma for Mr. Najmi Waziri, counsel for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGH
O R D E R
16.02.2012
On the last date, the Court had directed the respondents to comply with the order of the Division Bench dated 09.02.2011 or file their affidavits to extend their reasons for non-compliance. The affidavits have been filed. The consistent stand taken in the affidavits of respondents 1 to 3 is that in the case of Sudama Singh, the SLP has been
preferred before the Supreme Court which came up before the Supreme Court in early January, 2012 and is pending.
It is stated that this Court had, in the case of Sudama Singh quashed the policy of not rehabilitating the encroachers/squatters in the right of way. The respondents state that they are awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court to implement the order dated 09.02.2011 as the squatterers in the case, who are 600 in number, all are sitting in the right of way.
A perusal of the order dated 09.02.2011 shows that the Court in categorical terms directed the respondents to positively remove the encroachments in the right of way by the end of March, 2012. The Court reproduced its earlier orders of 11.02.2009, 28.02.2010 and 19.01.2011 in its said order.
The petitioners continue to suffer on account of the encroachment of the road/right of way and they are not even able to access their colonies because of the said encroachments.
The concern of the respondents for those squatting on the right of way is justified, as their encroachment and relocation are human problems, and involves rehabilitation of the poorest of the poor. However, the indifference shown by the respondents to the suffering of the petitioners, who are residing in their legally built and occupied co- operative societies after paying premium for land, cost of construction and who pay property taxes each year, cannot be appreciated. It is the obligation of the respondents to cater to the needs of all the citizens, and not only of a section of them. The respondents may formulate their policy with regard to the rehabilitation of persons squatting on the right of way, but that does not mean that the petitioners can be made to suffer indefinitely. The encroachments should now be removed without any further delay. If they are so minded, the respondents may temporarily rehabilitate the squatterers from the right of way of the petitioners colonies to another location, being mindful that in the process they do not create a nuisance for others. It is high time the suffering of the petitioners comes to an end.
Pertinently the decision of the Division Bench was rendered on 09.02.2011 and apparently no SLP has been preferred in relation to the order dated 09.02.2011 till date. SLP has been preferred in the case of Sudama Singh, decided in 2010. It appears the same was also preferred belatedly. This is a reflection of the seriousness with which the respondents have been addressing the problem being faced by the petitioners.
In the aforesaid background, I direct the respondents to positively remove the encroachments from the right of way of the petitioners society i.e. J.J. Cluster Virat Cooperative Society within 12 weeks from today. In case of non-compliance of the order dated 20.04.2011 as well as the present order within the aforesaid period, respondent no.2 shall personally remain present in court on the next date for initiation of contempt proceedings. The other two respondents are directed to fully cooperate and ensure compliance of this order.
List on 27.07.2012 for reporting compliance.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
CONT.CAS(C) 890/2011
VIRAT COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY
LTD and ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raj Panjwani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Shamlal,
Advocates.
versus
COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF
DELHI and ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Usha Saxena for R-1
Ms.Prerna Verma for Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Advocate for MCD.
Ms. Gayatri Verma for Mr. Najmi Waziri, counsel for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGH
O R D E R
16.02.2012
On the last date, the Court had directed the respondents to comply with the order of the Division Bench dated 09.02.2011 or file their affidavits to extend their reasons for non-compliance. The affidavits have been filed. The consistent stand taken in the affidavits of respondents 1 to 3 is that in the case of Sudama Singh, the SLP has been
preferred before the Supreme Court which came up before the Supreme Court in early January, 2012 and is pending.
It is stated that this Court had, in the case of Sudama Singh quashed the policy of not rehabilitating the encroachers/squatters in the right of way. The respondents state that they are awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court to implement the order dated 09.02.2011 as the squatterers in the case, who are 600 in number, all are sitting in the right of way.
A perusal of the order dated 09.02.2011 shows that the Court in categorical terms directed the respondents to positively remove the encroachments in the right of way by the end of March, 2012. The Court reproduced its earlier orders of 11.02.2009, 28.02.2010 and 19.01.2011 in its said order.
The petitioners continue to suffer on account of the encroachment of the road/right of way and they are not even able to access their colonies because of the said encroachments.
The concern of the respondents for those squatting on the right of way is justified, as their encroachment and relocation are human problems, and involves rehabilitation of the poorest of the poor. However, the indifference shown by the respondents to the suffering of the petitioners, who are residing in their legally built and occupied co- operative societies after paying premium for land, cost of construction and who pay property taxes each year, cannot be appreciated. It is the obligation of the respondents to cater to the needs of all the citizens, and not only of a section of them. The respondents may formulate their policy with regard to the rehabilitation of persons squatting on the right of way, but that does not mean that the petitioners can be made to suffer indefinitely. The encroachments should now be removed without any further delay. If they are so minded, the respondents may temporarily rehabilitate the squatterers from the right of way of the petitioners colonies to another location, being mindful that in the process they do not create a nuisance for others. It is high time the suffering of the petitioners comes to an end.
Pertinently the decision of the Division Bench was rendered on 09.02.2011 and apparently no SLP has been preferred in relation to the order dated 09.02.2011 till date. SLP has been preferred in the case of Sudama Singh, decided in 2010. It appears the same was also preferred belatedly. This is a reflection of the seriousness with which the respondents have been addressing the problem being faced by the petitioners.
In the aforesaid background, I direct the respondents to positively remove the encroachments from the right of way of the petitioners society i.e. J.J. Cluster Virat Cooperative Society within 12 weeks from today. In case of non-compliance of the order dated 20.04.2011 as well as the present order within the aforesaid period, respondent no.2 shall personally remain present in court on the next date for initiation of contempt proceedings. The other two respondents are directed to fully cooperate and ensure compliance of this order.
List on 27.07.2012 for reporting compliance.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
FEBRUARY 16, 2012
CONT.CAS(C) 890/2011
VIRAT COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD and ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Raj Panjwani, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Aditya Shamlal, Advocate.
versus
COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
OF DELHI and ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Advocate for the respondent No. 2/MCD.
Ms. Zeenat Masoodi, Advocate for the respondent No. 3/GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
O R D E R
05.12.2011
Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 accepts notice.
Let notice issue to respondent No. 1 returnable on 16.02.2012.
The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the orders dated 11.02.2009, 28.04.2010 and 09.02.2011 passed by this Court in writ proceedings and contempt proceedings, the respondents have not taken any steps whatsoever to remove the encroachments even though time has been granted lastly up to June 2011. According to the petitioner, the respondents have not even initiated the process of removal of the Jhuggi clusters.
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that some Special Leave Petitions are pending before the Supreme Court.
However, it appears that no interim stay of the directions of this Court have been granted by the Supreme Court. There is no justification for not abiding the orders passed by this Court. The respondents are hereby directed to implement the judgments and orders of this Court positively within four weeks. In case the same is not done, they should file their affidavits within four weeks to explain the non-compliance of the Court?s order. If neither is done, the respondents or those who had
fail to file their replies, should remain personally present in Court on the next date.
A copy of this order be given to respondent No. 2 and be also sent with the notice.
List on 16.02.2012.
Dasti.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
DECEMBER 05, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment