Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS SCJ 2372/23
NEW RESIDENTIAL WELFARE Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF
DELHI
22.12.2023
Present : Sh. Atul Kumar, ld. proxy counsel for the plaintiff.
Shri S.R. Dabi, ALO for defendant no. 1/MCD.
Sh. Bhagwan, ld. counsel for the defendant no. 2.
Ms. Kirti, ld. counsel for the defendant no. 3.
SI Manish Charan, PS Sarai Rohilla for defendant no. 4.
Fresh vakalatnama filed on behalf of the defendant no. 3.
Same is taken on record.
Status report is filed on behalf of SHO, PS Sarai Rohilla. As
per the status report, more time is sought for filing the reply.
A query is put to SI Manish as to whether the complaint of
the plaintiff is disposed at the police station or not and if the same is
disposed of, the reply should have been filed today. SI Manish submits
that there are many complaints pending in regard to the tower sought to be
constructed.
SHO PS Sarai Rohilla is directed to file his reply by the next
date of hearing without any exception.
It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for defendant no. 2 that the
name of defendant no. 2 is not correct. He also submits that defendant no.
2 is not the owner of the property. He submits that summons were not
served on defendant no. 2.
Ld. counsel for defendant no. 2 accepts summons on behalf
of defendant no. 2. Copy of the plaint and documents is supplied to ld.
counsel for defendant no. 2 from the court record.
-- 1 of 3 --
Defendant no. 2 is directed to file WS within the statutory
period and the reply to the interim application be filed by the next date of
hearing.
Ld. counsel for defendant no. 3 accepts summons on behalf
of defendant no. 3. Copy of the plaint and documents is supplied to ld.
counsel for defendant no. 2 from the court record.
Defendant no. 3 is directed to file WS within the statutory
period and the reply to the interim application be filed by the next date of
hearing.
Ld. counsel for plaintiff has filed copy of the permission
dated 09.11.2023 granted by the MCD for the erection of the cellular
tower and he submits that as per this permission itself, no inspection was
carried out. He further submits that as per the building bye-laws, structure
fitness certificate is required to be obtained. He further submits that as per
the bye-laws, 20 meter space is also required to be left. He submits that
these conditions have not been met in the present case.
In view of the decision in Vikas Luthra Vs. MCD, WP(C) No.
6525/12, dated 05.05.2016, the construction of the cellular tower on the
ground that the same may be hazardous to the health of the residence
cannot be halted. However, It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff
that the case of the plaintiff is not limited to the aspect of the hazardous
nature of the cellular transmission but is also on the aspect that the
requisite requirements of the law have not been fulfilled and the same may
be dangerous to the safety of the residents.
Having regard to the nature of the suit, it is necessary to hear
all the parties before passing any orders on the interim application.
-- 2 of 3 --
Notice be issued to SHO, PS Sarai Rohilla to file his reply,
returnable for the next date of hearing.
It appears that plaintiff has not mentioned the description of
defendant no. 1 correctly. Let amended memo of parties be filed along-
with correct names and description of defendant no. 1 and 2.
On filing of the amended memo, summons be issued to
defendant no. 1 afresh along-with notice to the interim application on
filing of PF as well as through all permissible modes for the next date of
hearing.
Accordingly, put up for arguments on the interim application
on 03.01.2024.
(Pranav Joshi)
ASCJ (Central)/Delhi
22.12.2023
-- 3 of 3 --