W.P.(C)4582/2010 Page 1 of 4 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 14th July, 2010. + W.P.(C) No.4582/2010 % NUSRAT PARVEEN @ PARVEEN KHAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Satya Pal, Advocate Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether 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 No in the Digest? RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The petitioner has instituted this petition seeking directions to the respondent no.1 MCD to take action for stoppage and removal of unauthorized construction stated to have been carried out by the respondents no. 2 to 4 in their property. The petition itself states that with respect to the said unauthorized construction earlier also WP(C)1840/2006 was filed and in which certain orders were made. W.P.(C)4582/2010 Page 2 of 4 2. In view of the said statement in the writ petition, it has been inquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to how the second writ for the same relief lies. The counsel for the petitioner states that the earlier writ petition was filed by someone else and not by the petitioner; that the orders made in the earlier writ petition are not being complied with and the petitioner being not a party to the same is unable to enforce the same and hence has filed this writ petition. 3. The matter was passed over and the file of WP(C)1840/2006 has been called for. The said writ petition was filed by the Mohalla Sudhar Samiti. Vide order dated 8th February, 2006 in the said writ petition the MCD, DDA and the Commissioner of Police were directed to ensure that no unauthorized construction was carried out in the property. On 21st July, 2006 it was again ordered that if MCD finds any unauthorized construction in the property it should proceed thereagainst in accordance with law. The earlier writ petition was disposed of on 7th November, 2007 recording that the unauthorized portion complained of on the first floor of the property had been demolished and the owners (who are respondents no. 2 to 4 herein) had given undertaking that they shall not violate any provision of law or sanction to raise building granted to them by the MCD. This Court accepted the undertaking given by the owners and bound them with the same. It was also observed that the MCD shall be bound by the statutory duty to ensure that no unauthorized construction is raised in the property. W.P.(C)4582/2010 Page 3 of 4 4. The counsel for the petitioner contends that though the respondents no. 2 to 4 herein have acted in breach of their undertaking to this court in the earlier writ petition and are thus liable to be proceeded against for the same but the petitioner being not a party to the earlier writ petition, is not in a position to initiate any action for breach of the undertaking and hence this petition. The said contention of the counsel for the petitioner in my opinion is not valid. The petition such as the earlier one and this one for direction to the MCD to perform its duties and remove the unauthorized construction complained of are not for the personal benefit of the petitioner approaching the court alone but for the observance of the Building Bye Laws and which observance is in the general interest of the society. Even if the petitioner who had filed the earlier petition has lost interest, it remains open to any other person to enforce the undertaking; the enforcement of the order/undertaking is not vested exclusively in the petitioner in that petition only. Even otherwise, this would be a better course to adopt rather than multiply the petitions with respect to same unauthorized construction. 5. The counsel for the petitioner next contends that the petitioner in the present petition is also seeking action against the officials of MCD within whose jurisdiction the unauthorized construction has taken place. The order in the earlier writ petition also directed that the MCD shall be bound by its statutory duty to ensure that no unauthorized construction is raised in the W.P.(C)4582/2010 Page 4 of 4 property. It is open to the petitioner to seek the said direction in the enforcement of the orders of the earlier writ petition. 6. This writ petition is thus not found maintainable owing to the earlier WP(C) 1840/2006 and is dismissed. It shall however be open to the petitioner to enforce the orders and undertaking given in the earlier writ petition. No order as to costs. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 14th July, 2010 M..