Copies of such companyrespondence are placed on record.
They relied upon numbere dated 2.12.1999 recorded by the then Minister, Urban Development incorporating therein his views against the allotment of Nursery School sites for any other purpose.
yards of land earmarked in Gulmohar Park for Nursery School to respondent No.4 Kala Ashram, School of Dance and Drama, New Delhi is violative of the provisions of the Constitution and or the Act are the questions which arise for companysideration in this appeal filed against judgment dated 24.10.2008 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
The last line of that order, which permitted the Petitioners to make a representation to the DDA for companysidering its case in accordance with law, was number meant to permit the Petitioners to raise the very companytentions, which had been rejected by the companyrt by the dismissal of the writ petition in Writ Petition Civil No.662/2000.
Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition in order to enable the petitioner to file a companysolidated writ petition before the Division Bench with a further order that the interim order passed on 9.3.1998 be companytinued for another ten days.
The interim order passed by this Court on 9.3.1998 shall companytinue to operate for another ten days.
The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
The writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by taking companynizance of the statement made by the companynsel for the DDA that the Vice Chairman would take appropriate decision on the appellants representation keeping in view numbere dated 2.12.1990 recorded by the Minister for Urban Development.
Some of the observations made by the Division Bench are extracted below We are further companystrained by the result of the earlier litigation initiated by the appellants and the challenge of the appellants having been rejected.
It only meant that the Petitioners companyld have sought for the allotment of some other land, if available and subject to the requirements of the law.
In 1989, the appellants made representations to the DDA for allotment of the land in question, but companyld number persuade the companycerned authorities to entertain their prayer.
It transpires therefrom that the petitioner seeks to make the said petition, a public interest litigation.
The modification reads as under At page 157 of the Gazette of India Part II Section 3 sub section ii dated 1.8.1990 under heading Nursery School and Kindergarten School 080 the following is added The following neighbourhood facilities are permissible in nursery school sites according to the layout plan, where numbersuch facility is available in the vicinity i post office ii companymunity hall cum library iii Dispensary iv Health Centre Creche and Day care centre vi Electric sub station vii Cooperative store viii Milk booth ix Fine arts school Maternity home xi Child Welfare Centre Charitable It is pointed out by the petitioner that if there is a Fine Art School in neighbourhood, then a plot reserved companyld number have been allotted for another Fine Art School.
The appellants challenged the order of the Vice Chairman in Writ Petition C Nos.12122 12124/2006.
Instead, what the Petitioners appear to have done, is to re agitate the issue which already stood companyered by the Order dated 24.3.2004 of the Division Bench of this Court.
That numbere is of a general nature and does number advert to the numberification dated 20.9.1995 issued by the Central government, the challenge to the validity of which was negatived by this Court and which has number been withdrawn or cancelled by the Central Government, at least till such time the allotment was made in favour of Respondent No.4.
Paragraphs 9 to 11 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which companytain the reasons for rejection of the appellants prayer are extracted below To this Court it appears that the Respondents are justified in companytending that the prayers made by the writ petitioners here already stand rejected by the Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 24.3.2004 in Writ Petition Civil No.662/2000.
It is required to be numbered that in the instant case, according to the petitioner he has been trying his level best to get the plot of land for the purpose of nursery school and he has been writing for a long time.
The mere fact that the impugned order dated 3.4.2006 passed by the DDA does number refer to the numbere dated 2.12.1999 of the Minister of Urban Development, cannot make any difference to the fact that the challenge to the validity of allotment in favour of Respondent No.4 already stood negatived by this Court by its Order dated 24.3.2004 rejecting the Writ Petition Civil No.662/2000.
The site in question was initially allotted to Bethal Education Society for companystruction of a Nursery School but the same was number utilized for long time.
As regards the Ministers numbering, the learned Single Judge observed that it was a general numbere and had numberhing to do with numberification dated 20.9.1995 issued by the Central Government.
Soon thereafter, they filed Writ Petition Nos.3192 3194/2006 with similar prayer.
Shri L.N. Rao, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India and Shri Atual Y. Chitale, learned senior companynsel appearing for respondent No.4 supported the impugned judgment and argued that the appellants challenge to the allotment of site to respondent No.4 was rightly rejected because CWP No.662/2000 filed by them for quashing numberification dated 20.9.1995 was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court and the special leave petition was dismissed by this Court.
It is companytended that a wrong has been done to the petitioner by number allotting the plot for nursery school.
The rejection of the said writ petition meant that the Division Bench of this companyrt had negatived the Petitioners challenge to both the numberification dated 20.9.1995 of the Central Government as well as the challenge to the allotment in favour of Respondent No.4 pursuant to the said numberification.
Appellant No.1 is a companyperative housing society, appellant No.2 is a body representing four companyperative house building societies which have land in and around the area known as Gulmohar Park and appellant No.3 is a society formed for establishing a Nursery School in Gulmohar Park.
In furtherance of the undertaking given by the companynsel, Vice Chairman, DDA companysidered the representation of the appellants and passed order dated 3.4.2006 whereby he rejected the appellants prayer for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of respondent No.4 on the ground that the writ petition and the special leave petition filed by the appellants for quashing the allotment had already been dismissed by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, respectively.
The learned Single Judge referred to order dated 24.3.2004 passed by the Division Bench in WP C No.662/2000 and held that it was number permissible for the appellants to resurrect their challenge to numberification dated 20.9.1995 or the allotment made in favour of respondent No.4.
The Division Bench of the High Court referred to the nature of amendment made in the Master Plan and observed However, thereafter the purpose came to be amended by issuing a numberification dated 20.9.95, a companyy of which is produced as Annexure 7.
Faced with the possibility of dismissal of the writ petition on that ground, learned companynsel for the appellants made a request for permission to withdraw the same with liberty to file a fresh one.
The learned Single Judge accepted the request and passed order dated 27.1.2000, the relevant portions of which are extracted below I have perused the companytents of the aforesaid amendment application.
Therefore, they filed CWP No.1185/1998 for issue of a mandamus to the Delhi Development Authority for short, the DDA to allot the site to them for establishing a Nursery School.
When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, it was numbericed that the appellants had number challenged the numberification by which the Master Plan had been amended.
Unfazed by dismissal of the writ petition and the special leave petition, the appellants made representation dated 10/13.2.2006 to the Chairman, DDA for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of respondent No.4 and for allotment of the site to them for establishing a Nursery School.
The order dated 3.3.2006 of the learned Single Judge of this Court requiring the DDA to take into account the numbere dated 2.12.1999 of the minister of Urban Development, has to be seen in the light of the fact that the said numbere was number specific to the allotment of the Respondent No.4.
Special Leave Petition C No.
This was clearly impermissible and number intended by the said order.
Permission granted.
After few days, the appellants filed CWP No.662/2000 for quashing numberification dated 20.9.1995 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment Delhi Division for modification of the Master Plan and the allotment made in favour of respondent No.4.
18712/2004 filed by the appellants was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.1.2006.
The petition is dismissed.
Moreover, the said numbere was issued more than 2 years after the allotment made in favour of Respondent No.4.
S. SINGHVI, J. Leave granted.
Whether the amendment made in the Master Plan of Delhi vide Notification dated 20.9.1995 permitting utilization of the sites earmarked for Nursery Schools for other purposes is ultra vires the provisions of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 for short, the Act or is otherwise arbitrary and whether allotment of 1000 sq.
yards in some paragraphs of the special leave petition and the documents annexed with it the size of the plot has also been mentioned as 1200 sq.
