Open iDraf
Anil Kumar v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Another

Anil Kumar
Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Another

(High Court Of Delhi)

Civil Writ Petition No. 16588 of 2004 | 09-01-2006

1. The allegation of the petitioner is that he has been discriminated against in that 38 persons similarly placed to him have been granted a licence/permission to run a Chemist Shop from a residential area, but he has been refused. The essence of the Petition relates to the permitted land user in the metropolis of Delhi. Earlier, I have dismissed the Writ Petition No. 23918/2005, where the allegation was that even though the premises in question were illegal, the petitioner ought to have been issued a show cause notice and should have been granted an opportunity of being heard, as required by the tenets of natural justice. In my view in the case of a blatant violation of the law, such adherence was necessary since no redressable right in favour of the Petitioner have come into existence.

2. It is of common knowledge and concern that demolition of illegal or unauthorized structures is being carried out throughout Delhi, but the citizens are aggrieved and hurt by the fact that it is being conducted in a discriminatory manner. Public outcry is predicated on the argument that because of an increase in the strength of the family and the consequent need for more accommodation, additions have been carried out to duly sanctioned buildings. This contention does not hold any relevance to commercial conversion and user in residential areas, or to downright illegal construction, where no sentiments are attracted. There are Press Reports appearing everyday giving details of illegal and unauthorized constructions carried out by several MLAs in Delhi. Instead of voluntarily agreeing return to conforming user, or to rectify or modify or remove the illegal constructions the stand of the prominent and influential persons is that an Ordinance will be passed with the view of regularization. If this is so, ordinary citizens should be treated in like manner. These observations should not be construed as indicating the opinion of the Court that demolitions of illegal structures should not be carried out; the concern is with the priori taxation and unfair implementation. Ordinary citizens should not face hostile and coercive action whereas leaders and influential, powerful and prominent persons, who are likewise carrying out legally impermissible user, should go scot-free.

3. “Be you never so high, the law is above you” is an acclaimed and oft-quoted aphorism of over three centuries vintage. In Regina v. Woodley, the Chief Justice had remarked that, “the law is for protection of the weak more than the strong.” Regretfully the manner in which the procedural protection and requirements have been scattered in the storm is reminiscent of Oliver Goldsmith words in the Traveller — “Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law”.

4. The Indian Express on 24.12.2005, 25.12.2005, 26.12.2005, 27.12.2005, 28.12.2005, 29.12.2005 and 31.12.2005 has reported about illegal buildings belonging to prominent citizens of Delhi. Public perception is that it is only the lower strata of society which encounters the brunt of the Law. This perception must be rectified and this can only be achieved when the most influential meet with the rigours of law along with ordinary citizens. This vindicates the purpose of law.

5. Issue Court Notice to Principal Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi and Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi to file an ‘Action Taken Report’ in respect of the properties owned/managed by MLAs/Corporators mentioned in the News Reports, including of the following — 1. Shri Ram Banu Sharma, 2. Shri Jai Bhagwan Aggarwal, 3. Shri Mukesh Sharma, 4. Dr. Ashok Kumar Walia, 5. Mr. Prem Singh, 6. Ms. Anjali Rai and 7. Mr. Prahalad Singh Sahni who had filed a PIL praying for a cessation of the demolition of illegal structures in Delhi.

6. Copy of this Order be sent to Principal Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi and Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi for necessary compliance. Copy of this Order be given dasti to the learned Counsel for the respondent. Renotify for 31st January, 2006.

Advocates List

For the Petitioner H.C.Mittal, Advocate. For the Respondents R1, Ms. Iram Majid for Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates.

For Petitioner
  • Shekhar Naphade
  • Mahesh Agrawal
  • Tarun Dua
For Respondent
  • S. Vani
  • B. Sunita Rao
  • Sushil Kumar Pathak

Bench List


Eq Citation