LPA 1735/2006 Page 1 of 4 #28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 1735/2006 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate versus VIKRAMJIT KAPOOR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajinder Aggarwal and Mr. Tanuj Khurana, Advocates. % Date of Decision : 06th September, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J CM Nos. 10749 & 10751/2006 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, applications stand disposed of. CM 10750 & 10752/2006 For the reasons stated in the applications, delay in filing and refiling the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, applications stand disposed of. LPA 1735/2006 Page 2 of 4 LPA 1735/2006 & CM 10748/2006 1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 17th January, 2006 passed in W.P.(C) 2004/1997 whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed the appellant’s demand towards misuse charges raised upon the respondent for allegedly running a guest house. By virtue of the said order, a mandamus was also issued to appellant-DDA to consider and process the conversion application filed by the respondent in accordance with law. 2. On 10th March, 2008, learned counsel for appellant-DDA had stated before this Court that two other Letters Patent Appeals being LPA No.1576/2005 titled Union of India vs. Sh. Manvinder Singh Vedi and LPA No.2642/2005 titled Union of India vs. Anu Mehra involving similar issues were pending consideration in this Court. Since on the said date of hearing the learned counsel for appellant-DDA had also pointed out that the aforesaid two LPAs had been adjourned sine die in view of pendency of Special Leave Petition No. 6624/2005 wherein also the issue relating to levy of misuse charges on running of guest house was pending before the Supreme Court, the present case was adjourned sine die with liberty to learned counsel for the parties to get it revived once the Special Leave Petition was disposed of. 3. Admittedly, on 18th February, 2010, the aforesaid Special Leave Petition No.6624/2005 was dismissed. However, the Apex Court left LPA 1735/2006 Page 3 of 4 the question of law open for decision in some other case. Subsequent to the Supreme Court’s order, LPA No.1576/2005 and LPA 2642/2005 were also dismissed by this Court in terms of the Division Bench judgment in Union of India vs. Vinay Kumar Agarwal (LPA 696/2004), which led to the filing of Special Leave Petition No.6624/2005. Order dated 22nd April, 2010 of the Division Bench dismissing LPA No. 1576/2005 is reproduced hereinbelow:- “The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 4th February, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7642/2001. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order indicates that the learned Single Judge followed the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vinay Kumar Agarwal (LPA No.696/2004 decided on 7th January, 2005). On 7th March, 2006, it was stated by learned counsel for the Appellant that a similar matter is pending before the Supreme Court and therefore the present LPA was adjourned sine die and the impugned judgment and order was stayed. The Registry has now informed us that in fact an Special Leave Petition was filed against the judgment of the Division Bench being Civil Appeal No.1364/2006 (Union of India vs. Vinay Kumar Agarwal). That Civil Appeal was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 18th February, 2010 on which date the following order was passed: We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgments of the High Court. We however, leave the question of law that has been raised by the ASG, open for decision in some other case. With this observation the appeal is dismissed. Since the decision of this Court in LPA no.696/2004 decided on 7th January, 2005 has not been interfered with, this appeal is dismissed in terms of that decision.” 4. The matter was thereafter repeatedly adjourned for the learned counsel for the appellant-DDA to take instruction as to whether due to change in policy, anything survived in the present appeal. LPA 1735/2006 Page 4 of 4 5. Today, Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, learned counsel for appellant- DDA submitted that she had received instructions to contest the matter on merits. When it was pointed out to Ms. Chandra that on her own statement the controversy in the present appeal was similar to LPA No.1576/2005 and LPA 2642/2005 which have now been dismissed, Ms. Chandra submitted that in view of the Supreme Court leaving the question of law open in SLP No.6624/2005, we should reconsider the issue. 6. However, we are of the view that we are bound by the Division Bench judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Vinay Kumar Agarwal (supra) as well as the coordinate Bench’s order dated 22nd April, 2010 in LPA No.1576/2005 which has been reproduced hereinabove. 7. Consequently, following the judgment of the coordinate Division Bench in LPA No.1576/2005, we dismiss the present appeal. MANMOHAN, J CHIEF JUSTICE SEPTEMBER 06, 2010 js