\ Itr 46 to 50S- * N THE HIGH COURT OF' DELHI AT NEW DELHI 46+ W.P.(C) 8s6212010 & CM No.2185412010 (for stav) DE UNIQUE, EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: NIr. Ashish Bhagat, Avdhesh Chaudhary, Ms. Manisha Suri & Mr. Dushyant Aror4 Advocates. Versus MCD AND ORS ""' ResPondents Through: iW. Ajay Arora & Nk. Kapil Dutt4 Advocates for MCD. N/tr. Abhir Datt & Mr. AmandeeP Rajgofia, Advocates for Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Adv. for DDA. AND 47+ V/.P.(C) 856312010 & CM No.2l8s6l20l0 (for stav) RIMA KHOSLA ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Bhagat, Avdhesh Chaudhary, Ms. Manisha Suri & Mr. Dushyant Arora, Advocates. Versus MCD AND ORS ..... ResPondents Through: Mr. Ajay Arora & Mr. Kapil Dutta" Advocates for MCD. Mr. Abhir Datt & Mr. AmandeeP Rajgofia, Advocates for Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Adv. for DDA. AND tr" u6 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 1/ *- 48+ W.P.(C) 8s6412010 & CM No.21858 12010 (for stav) RAJESH AGGARWAL ""' Petitioner Through: Ivk. Ashish Bhagat, Avdhesh Chaudhary, Ms. Manisha Suri & |ar. Dushyant Aror4 Advocates. Versus MCD 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. AIID 49+ W.P.(C) 8s6512010 & CMNo.21860/2010 (for stav) VAG INFOTECH & ANR. ,.... Petitioners Through: Mr. 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. Mr. Abhir Datt & Mr. AmandeeP Rajgotra, Advocates foi Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Adv. for DDA. AND 50+ V'/.P.(C) 856612010 & CM No.2186212010 (for stay) IACM SMART LEARN LIMITED ..... PEtitiONETS Through: Mr. Ashish Bhagat, Avdhesh Chaudhary, Ms. Manisha Suri & Mr. Dushyant Aror4 Advocates. 2t6 !> Versus MCD 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. CORAM: IION'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJTV SAIIAI ENDLAW ORD ER 'h 22.12.2010 1. The petitioners in all the writ petitions claim to be'carrying on activity as coaching cenfies 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'2021 the carrying on of activrty 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 ale pre-mature' He has however 316 q a\ ts- 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 centres 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 21" JanuarY, 20II. 4. On the aspect 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 tfr'e OOe has since clarified with reference to the NDSE Part-II Colony that the Clause-l5 .7 ofthe Master Plan would not apply since the Occupancy Certificates of the Colony were issued post 1962. 5. The counsel for the respondent MCD further informs that the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court had directed sealing of such coaching centres in the Colony of NDSE Part-II and had in 4t6 {-. pursuance to the remarks of DDA, refused to de-seal the properly 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. 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 respond.rrt VtCn fufiher on instructions fiom ll4r. K.D. Sharma, AE, Central Zone has assured that if any action is contemplated against the petitioners and/or against the properties in occupation of the petitioners, sufficient notice and opporhrnity 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 r st6 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 same may result in contradictory 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. 10. Recording the aforesaid statement of the MCD qua issuance of notice f- 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 for exemptions) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. Copy of this order be given Dasti under the signature of the Court Master. RAJIV SAIIAI ENDLAW, J DECEMBF,R22,2010 bs.. fr 6t6