Whether court can set aside an order of demolition if one officer of Municipal Corporation has heard the petitioner and another officer has passed the order without hearing him?

 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

Print Page