ifrt 46 to 50S- * IN THE HIGII COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 46+ W.P.(C) 8s6212010 & CM No.2I8s4l20l0 (for stay) DE UNIQUE EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: VIr. Ashish Bhagat, Avdhesh Chaudhary, Ms. Manisha Suri & Mr. Dushyant Aror4 Advocates. Versus MCD AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Arora & Mr. Kapil Dutt4 Advocates for MCD. N4r. Abhir Datt & Mr. Amandeep Rajgotra, Advocates for Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Adv. for DDA. ANID 47+ W.P.(C) 8s6312010 & CM No.2I8s6l20l0 (for stay) RIMA KHOSLA .... Pefitioner Through: \4r. Ashish Bhagat, Avdhesh Chaudhary, Ms. Manisha Suri & Mr. Dushyant Arora, Advocates. Versus MqD AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Arora & Mr. Kapil Dutt4 Advocates for MCD. Mr. Abhir Datt & Mr. Amandeep Rajgotra, Advocates for Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Adv. for DDA. ANID - '-}j \ ll6 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 48+ W.P.(C) 8s6412010 & CMNo.218s8/2010 (for stay) RAJE,SH AGGARWAL Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Ashish Bhagat, Avdhesh Chaudhary, Ms. Manisha Suri & Mr. Dushyant Aror4 Advocates. ..... Respondents Mr. Ajay Arora & Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocates for MCD. IVk. Abhir Datt & Mr. Amandeep Rajgotra, Advocates for Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Adv. for DDA. ..... Petitioners Mr. Ashish Bhagat, Avdhesh Chaudhary, Ms. Manisha Suri & Mr. Dushyant Aror4 Advocates. ..... Respondents Mr. Ajay Arora & Mr. Kapil Dutt4 Advocates for MCD. Mr. Abhir Datt & Mr. Amandeep Rajgotra, Advocates for Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Adv. for DDA. Versus 'rs MCD AND ORS Through: AI\D 49+ W.P (C) 8s6s/2010 & CM No.2186012010 (for stay) VAG INFOTECH & ANR. Through: -\* Versus MCD AND ORS Through: AND 50+ w.P.(C) 8s6612010 & CM No.2186212010 (for stay) IACM SMART LEARN LIMITED ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Ashish Bhagat, Avdhesh Chaudhary, Ms. Manisha Suri & Mr. Dushyant Aror4 Advocates. 2/6 " 1. Versus MCD AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Arora & Mr. Kapil Dutt4 Advocates for MCD. Mr. Abhir Datt & \ft. Amandeep Rajgofra, Advocates for Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Adv. for DDA. CORAM: HON 'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAI{AI ENDLAW ORDER 22.t2.2010 The petitioners in all the writ petitions claim to be carrying on activity as coaching centres in various properties in the Colony of NDSE Part-I, New. Delhi. These writ petitions have been filed apprehending action of sealing of the said properties for carrying on unauthorized activity. It is inter alia the contention of the petitioners that under the MPD- 202I the carryigg on of activity as coaching centres is permissible in the Colony of NDSE Part-I being a pre 1962 Colony within the meaning of Clause 15.7 of the Master Plan. 2. The counsel for the respondents no.l & 2 MCD and the counsel for the respondent no.3 DDA appear on advance notice. The counsel for the respondent MCD has contended that there is no cause of action for the present writ petitions and the writ petitions are pre-mature. He has however 3t6 tl\. L^ fairly informed that MCD in pursuance to directions in a public interest litigation being W.P.(C) No.436912001 carried out the survey of the area and states that perhaps from the said survey the petitioners have been alarmed. 3. The counsel for the respondent MCD contends that the said public interest litigation has made a grievance inter alia of the coaching cenfres being illegally allowed to operate from the said Colony. It is informed that the said public interest litigation is listed next before the Division Bench of this Court on 2l 't January, 20II. 4. On the aqpect of the pre 1962 Colony, the counsel for the respondent MCD informs that though MCD also was earlier of the view that the coaching centres are permitted in the said Colony for the same reason but the Technical Committee of the DDA has since clarified with refersnce to the NDSE Part-II Colony that the Clause-l5.7 of the Master Plan would not apply since the Occupancy Certificates of the Colony were issued post 1962. 5. The counsel for the respondent MCD firther informs that the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court had directed sealing of such coaching cenfies in the Colony ofNDSE Part-II and had in =r 4t6 5 prusuance to the remarks of DDA, refused to de-seal the property sealed. 6. The counsel for the respondent MCD also contends that in view of the judgment dated llth Octob er, 2007 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.7109/2007 TSI Displays Pvt. Ltd. Vs. MCD, the remedy with respect to the action of MCD under directions of Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court, would be either before the Monitoring Committee or before the Supreme Court. 4 7. The counsel for the petitioners is also informed that a Full Bench of this Court is seized inter alia with the aspect of the correctness of the opinion expressed by the Division Bench n TSI Displays. 8. The counsel for the respondent MCD further on instructions from Mr. K.D. Sharma, AE, Central Zone has assured that if any action is J contemplated against the petitioners and/oi against the properties in occupation of the pefitioners, sufficient notice and opportumty of hearing would be given to the petitioners. To allay the apprehension expressed by the counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that an additional copy of the notice be also served to the Advocate of the petitioners in the present petitions. 9. This Court is of the opinion that since the survey which alarmed the st6 6 petitioners has been conducted pursuant to directions in the public interest litigation aforesaid, no purpose would be served in entertaining these writ petitions inasmuch as the szlme may result in contadictory orders. The remedy if any deemed appropriate by the petitioners, is by way of moving the appropriate applications in the public interest litigation aforesaid or before the Monitoring Committee or before the Supreme Court as and when the occasion arises. A 10. Recording the aforesaid statement of the MCD qua issuance of notice and opportunity of hearing and binding the MCD to the same, the writ petitions are disposed of with no order as to costs. CM No.21855/2010 in W.P.(O No.8562/2010. CM No.21857/2010 in W.P.(C) No.8563/2010. CM No.21.859/2010 in W.P.(C) No.8564/2010. CM No.21861/2010 in W.P.(O No.8565/2010 & CM No.21863/2010 in W.P.(C) No.8566/2010 (all fo.r exemptions) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. Copy of this order be given Dasti under the signature of the Court _)- Master. RAJTV SAHAI ENDLAW. J DECEMBE,R22,20t0 bs.. 6t6