SAVITA ARORA  Vs NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

W.P(C) 917/2021 Page 1
$~30
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 22. 01.2021
+ W.P(C) 917/2021
SMT. SAVITA ARORA ….. Petitioner
versus

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION…..Respondent
For t he Petitioner : Mr. Bhupinder Singh Saini , Advocate . Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Standing Counsel for North
DMC .
CORAM: –
HON’BLE MR JUSTICESANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL.2479/2021 (exemption)
1. Petitioner impugns a work stop notice dated 29.12.2020
requiring petitioner to stop carrying out any construction activity in
the property bearing No.3417 -18, Angoori Ghata, Gali Arya Sam aj,
Delhi -110006. W.P(C) 917/2021 & CM APPL. 2478/2021
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property of
the petitioner is an old property and the Municipal Corporation had
2021:DHC:240
W.P(C) 917/2021 Page 2
inspected the property in the year 2002 and an inspection report dated
30.07.2002 (Annexure P -4) was prepared.
3. Learned counsel submits that the inspection report clearly
indicates the entire extent of construction existing on the ground floor upto the third floor with dimensions of each portion being indicated
therein and it also indicates as to what was the old construction and
what additions have been made in the year 2002.
4. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner was given an
advisory letter by the respondent on 24.06.2019 indicating that the
building of the petitioner is dangerous and he should have the same
repaired. He submits that in terms of the said advisory letter petitioner
was merely carrying out repairs , when the impuged notice was
received.
5. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing
for the respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that when
unauthorised construction activity was noticed in the property a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.10. 2020.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a response to the
show cause notice has also been filed, however, a speaking order has
not yet been passed. Accordingly, he has approached the MCD Appellate Tribunal and since MCD Appellate Tribunal is not functional, he has approached this Court.
2021:DHC:240
W.P(C) 917/2021 Page 3
8. In view of the fact that a show cause notice has already been
issued to the petitioner , which has been responded to, Respondent s are
directed to grant a personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter
pass a speaking order in accordance with law , preferably within a
period of four weeks from today.
9. Till the passing of the speaking order petitioner shall not carry
out any construction activity and further repairs/renovation work
would be dependent upon the speaking order to be p assed by the
respondent in accordance with law.
10. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
11. It is clarified that Petitioner would be at liberty to impugn the
speaking order, if requi red.
12. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J .
JANUARY 22, 20 21/rk
2021:DHC:240