/ 24 to 27 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 24+ W.P.(C) 104/2011& CMNo.203/2011 (for stay) M/S ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES LTD. Petitioner Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Adv. Versus MCD Respondent Through: Ms. MansiGupta, Adv. withMr. P.V. Singh, Executive Engineer (Building), South Zone, MCD. AND 25+ W.P.(C)105/2011& CMNo.205/2011(forstay) M/S ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES LTD. Petitioner Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Adv. Versus Respondent Through: Ms. MansiGupta, Adv. with Mr. P.V. Singh, Executive Engineer (Building), South Zone, MCD. AND 26+ W.P.(C)106/2011& CM No.207/2011(forstay) M/S ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES LTD. Petitioner Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Adv. Versus MCD Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Adv. with Mr. P.V. Singh, Executive Engineer (Building), South Zone, MCD. AND 1/5 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 27+ W.P.(C) 107/2011 & CM No.209/2011 (for stay) M/S ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES LTD. Petitioner Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Adv. Versus MCD Respondent Through: Ms. Mansi Gupta, Adv. with Mr. P.V. Singh, Executive Engineer (Building), South Zone, MCD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW ORDER % 10.01.2011 r* 1. W.P.(C)No.104/2011impugnsthe order dated 31®^ December,2010 of the respondent MCD under Section 345A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act, 1957 directing the petitioner to stop the alleged misuse of the motel known as Maple-I situated at NH-8, Rajokari, New Delhi and particularly of the basement thereof and directing the petitioner to ^ bring the premisesto permitteduse as per the Master Plan ofDelhi-2021, # failing which sealing of the motel has been threatened. The senior counsel for the petitioner states that the factual and legal matrix in other three writ petitions is the same as in W.P.(C) No. 104/2011 save that they pertain to other motels of the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent MCD appearing on advance notice confirms the same. 2/5 ^ Court. 2. It is inter alia the contention of the petitioner that no notice/hearing has been given; no action has been taken on the representationpreferred by the petitioner;that under the amendedMaster Plan, the motels in the all the petitionsfalls under the FacilityCorridorArea and the norms of hotels are applicable to the motels and the basement can also be used for hotel purposessubjectto the same being countedin the FAR. It is further stated that the FAR including the basement would be within the permitted enhanced FAR. 3. The counsel for the respondent MCD appearing on advance notice first contended that the action of the MCD being under the directions of the MonitoringCommitteeappointedby the Supreme Court, as per the order dated 11*'' October, 2007 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.7109/2007 titled TSI displays (P) Ltd. Vs. MCD the remedy of the petitioneris eitherbeforethe MonitoringCommitteeor beforethe Supreme 4. It has however been enquired iBrom the counsel for the respondent MCD as to whether MCD, purporting to act under the directions of the Monitoring Committee and can give a go bye to the Act which requires opportunityof hearingto be givenbefore making such an order. 3/5 5. The counsel for the respondent MCD then under instructions from Mr. P.V. Singh, Executive Engineer (Building), South Zone, MCD states that a noticeofhearingon 20^''January,2011 has alreadybeen issuedto the petitioner and that no action shall be taken till hearing is given to the petitioner and till a reasoned order has been passed thereon. 6. The senior counsel for the petitioner states that no notice of hearing has been received as yet. He further states that since the order ultimately passedunderSection345 A oftheDMC Actwouldbe appealablebeforethe AppellateTribunal,MCD, the order even if any, againstthe petitionerbe not directed to be implementedfor a period of seven days, to enable the petitioner to avail remedies. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions (i) the petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, South Zone, MCD for hearing on 20^'' January, 2011 at 1400 hours. The petitioner is granted liberty to file such other documents/replies/representationsif necessary before the said official of the MCD before the said date. (ii) the MCD to pass a reasoned order after so hearing the petitionerandto a delivercopythereofto the petitioner. 4/5 (iii) the said order, if against the petitioner be not acted upon for a periodof sevendays fromthe deliverythereofto enablethe petitioner to avail appropriateremedies,if any, availablethereagainst. No order as to costs. CM No.204/2011 in W.P.(C^ No. 104/2011. CM No.206/2011 in W.P.(C) No. 105/2011. CM No.208/2011 in W.P.(C) No. 106/2011 & CM No.210/2011 in W.P.fC^ No. 107/2011 (all for exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. Copy of this order be given Dasti under the signatureof the Court Master. JANUARY 10, 2t 11 bs.. RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW, J 5/5