VINOD GOEL vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ SB-15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27th June, 2025 + W.P.(C) 8558/2025 & CM APPL. 37014-37015/2025 VINOD GOEL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akash Deep Gupta, Mr. Somdev Tiwari, Mr. Prashant Singh and Ms. Sharda Garg, Advocates. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj K Sharma, ASC for MCD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by learned SDM, Punjabi Bagh, District West, whereby, the concerned SDM has come to the finding that there is an unauthorized construction without any approval from the Competent Authority and, therefore, MCD has been asked to take necessary action for demolition against such unauthorized construction. 2. Pursuant to the abovesaid order of learned SDM, MCD has issued a vacation notice under Section 349 of DMC Act, 1957. 3. The order passed by learned SDM, Punjabi Bagh, District West, would indicate that there was no representation from the side of the concerned respondents. 4. The notice was duly sent to respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and the petitioner herein happens to be respondent No. 6 but for the reasons best known to them, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 8558/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:27.06.2025 19:41:54 they never chose to appear before the concerned SDM. There was no response from their side despite the fact that the notice was duly affixed at the site. 5. According to the petitioner, there was some inter se disputes between the petitioner and his partners and, therefore, he never came to know about the abovesaid notice and could not participate in the proceedings conducted by the learned SDM. 6. It is, however, sub