V - —5 •V 19 %22.06.2011 Present: Mr Rajeev Sagar, Adv. for the Petitioner. Mr Nalin Tripathi, Addl. Standing Counsel for the MCD/R-1. +W.P.(C) No. 4425/2011 1. The petitionerR.L. Bhutanihas filed the presentwrit petitionagainst the order No. EE(B-l)/K-12/UC/2011/B-295,dated 07.06.2011 passed by the respondentNo.l for demolitionof the propertybearingNo. 153-B,LIG Flats, Rajouri Garden, Extension,Delhi. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not done any illegal construction at his residential premises. The alleged construction on the second floor of the aforesaid propertywas done in the year 1992 after seekingpermission for construction from the DDA and the petitioner has been continuously paying the house tax •# to the respondent No.l since 1983 till 2011-12 i.e. for the last about 30 years. The respondent No.l herein has issued a show cause notice dated 31.05.2011 received by the petitioner on 06.06.2011 tlirough his neighbour. The petitioner immediately replied to the said notice and also personally appeared before the MCD on 07.06.2011. He has also pointed out that almost all the flats in the said area have been constmcted in the similar Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified f ¥ >• manner and not only that the said owners have also done construction on the third floor within the knowledge of the MCD but the MCD has not taken any action against them. The respondent No.l has only chosen the petitioner to target the petitioner under the influence of the respondent No.2. After consideringthe reply of the petitioner, show cause notice / impugned order was passed by the respondentNo.l MCD on 07.06.2011 for demolitionof the second floor of the petitioner's residential premises. 2. The petitioner submitted that the appeal against the said order was filed before the Appellate Tribunal on 13.06.2011. Since the vacancy in the office of the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal, MCD is not filled up, therefore,the appeals are not being heard and the petitioner has become totally remediless. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.l MCD has appeared on advance notice and has confirmed that the Presiding Officer of the Appellate ^ Tribunal, MCD, is not available and new Presiding Officer has been appointed and the appeals are likely to be heard very shortly. He has also confirmed that several other petitions have been filed for the similar relief 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has a good prima facie case in his favour. In fact the respondent No.l is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner and the respondent No.l has 3 deliberatelytargetedthe petitionerat the instanceofthe respondentNo.2 and not taken any action against the owners of the other flats who even constructed third floor of the flat. 5. I find that there is force in the submissions of the petitioner that in case the order of demolition is not stayed, the petitioner will suffer irreparableloss and injury. It is arguedthat the petitionerhas a strongcase on merit and has addressed his submissions before the Appellate Tribunal,MCD. Since the PresidingOfficeris not available,therefore,the prayer is made by the petitionerthat till the appeal of the petitioner is decided the interim order be passed. 6. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the directionsthat that till the hearingof the appealfiledby the petitionerbefore the AppellateTribunal,the respondentNo.l MCD shallnot take any action as per demolitionorderdated07.06.2011,subjectto the petitionergivingan € undertaking that he will not sell, alienate, encumber or part with the possessionof the second floor of propertybearingNo. 153-B, LIG Flats, RajouriGarden,Extension,Delhi. In case the petitioneris found in breach of the said undertaking, the MCD shall then be entitled to talce action in pursuanceto the orders and notices impugnedherein. No order as to costs. u Dasti under signature of the Court Master. r ^ f ^GH JUNE 22, 2011/dp » .y •it- MANMOHAN SIN( (VACATION JUDGE)