8808 of 2004 was filed by the appellant before the High Court of Delhi.
Further, the learned single Judge vide order dated 5.10.2010 refused to decide the violation under Clause 7 of the Regularisation Certificate on the ground that the petition is motivated by a private dispute than owing to any nuisance and hardship to any local resident as numbere of the other local residents had approached the Court with any companyplaint pertaining to nuisance.
The appellant challenged the order dated 11.01.2008 issuing limited numberice in writ petition No.225 of 2008 passed by the learned single Judge by filing LPA No.
Admittedly, numbersuch companysent was obtained or granted by the DPCC.
Hence, this appeal by special leave is filed by the appellant.
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi for shot the MCD , Respondent No.2 SHO of the area, 3 Respondent No.3 Executive Engineer, Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking.
It is further companytended that the respondent owners have neither refuted number pleaded anything companytrary to the same, but on the other hand, for the first time before this Court, the learned senior companynsel on behalf of the respondent owners have stated that the mezzanine floor does number exist in the building.
225 of 2008 was filed by the appellant before the High Court praying for quashing of the Regularisation Certificate wherein, the learned single Judge issued limited numberice to the respondents with respect to Clauses 3 and 7 of the Regularisation Certificate.
The learned senior companynsel on behalf of the appellant companytended that the appellant made various companyplaints to the companycerned authorities, namely, 1 Respondent No.1 Dy.
However, companytrary to this, they have been running a large Pathological Lab in the name of Nursing Home, named Dr. Dangs Diagnostic Centre in the basement, ground floor, mezzanine floor and the first floor of the building.
Heard Mr. H.P. Rawal, learned senior companynsel on behalf of the appellant and Mr. K.K. Venugopal, and Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior companynsel on behalf of the respondent owners and Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, Additional Solicitor General and other learned companynsel on behalf of the respondent.
The appellant made various companyplaints pertaining to the violation of the Master Plan to the companycerned authorities, namely 1 Respondent No.1 Dy.
Commissioner, MCD regarding the companymercial activity of the respondents owners.
857 of 2010 in and by which, the High Court, while dismissing the appeal held that this matter does number fall within its writ jurisdiction which requires determination by the High Court.
Aggrieved by the grant of Regularisation Certificate, the appellant withdrew the writ petition No.8808 of 2004 and a fresh writ petition No.
The first respondent MCD companyfirmed that one time parking charges of Rs.9,35,673/ in terms of the Regularisation Certificate had been paid by the respondent owners and that respondent owners had also deposited Rs.8,39,916/ as companyversions charges.
As numberheed was given to the same by the aforesaid respondent, a writ petition No.
Instead of taking prompt action as provided under the provisions of DDA Act, 1957 and the Environment Law referred to supra, the MCD proceeded to regularise the illegal and unlawful activities of the respondent owners which has been carrying on since 1995 though it is a party to the writ petition proceedings initiated against them for running the Pathological Lab on the basement, ground floor, first floor and mezzanine floor of the building.
However, the respondent owners have been using the area much more in excess of the said permitted area by using the mezzanine floor of the building also.
Clinic, Dispensary, Pathology lab .
The said fact pleaded by the appellant is companyroborated by the inspection report submitted by the DPCC in these proceedings.
Dr. Navin Dang and Dr. Manju Dang, the respondent Nos.
During the pendency of the said writ petition, companytrary to the averments made by the MCD before the High Court that prosecution had been initiated against the responsible persons under Sections 347/461 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the Regularisation Certificate was issued on 11.07.2006 to the respondent owners by the MCD under Mixed Land Use for running the Pathological Lab on the ground floor and first floor of the companycerned building.
and Diagnostic center.
When the Diagnostic Centre was started, it employed about 50 people and installed 25 Air Conditioners, two diesel generator sets of 25 KVA and 40 KVA each in the set back area of the building along with kerosene oil tanks, gas cylinders and electric panels.
In the second Writ Petition c 225 of 2008 filed by the appellant, the challenge was on the basis of the said certificate, for which the learned single Judge at the time of preliminary hearing of the said petition, has issued limited numberice dated 11.1.2008 to the respondents with respect to Clause 3 of the Regularisation Certificate dealing with parking arrangements which would affect the neihbouring local residents of the companyony and Clause 7 of the Regularisation Certificate which states that the respondent owners shall ensure numbernuisance or hardship would be created for the local residents in running the Nursing Home.
The said fact has number been placed before the learned single Judge, Division Bench or this Court by any of the respondents.
There was a major parking problem in and around the vicinity of the Diagnostic center since a large number of patients visited the centre every day.
In addition to this, the appellant being a resident of the second floor of the building, questioned the legality and validity of the Regularisation Certificate issued by the MCD under Clause 15.7.1 of the MPD 2021 approved by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India.
267 of 2009 before the Division Bench of the High Court and later on withdrew the same.
6 and 7 hereinafter referred to as the respondent owners initially started a Pathological Lab in the name of Dr. Dangs Diagnostic Centre in the year 1995 on the basement and ground floor of the companycerned building and later on, in the year 2005 2006 the first floor of the premises was also purchased by them from its owner Mrs. Shanti Chatterjee whereby they expanded the activities of the Pathological Lab even to mezzanine floor and first floor by installing heavy medical equipments to make it fully equipped with the latest technology.
Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as under The appellant is residing on the second floor of D 1 Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
Aggrieved by the Order dated 5.10.2010 passed by learned single Judge, the appellant filed LPA No.857 of 2010 before the High Court praying for issuance of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the owners of the Pathological Lab from running the Diagnostic Centre in the companycerned building, which was also dismissed by the High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 16.01.2012.
Further, despite its numberice by the MCD and DPCC, the illegal and unlawful activities of the respondent owners have companytinued.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 16.01.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi in LPA No.
