The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to demolish alleged illegal constructions in the Okhla Industrial area, citing insufficient investigation and imposing a penalty of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner. The bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora delivered the verdict after hearing arguments from counsel representing the concerned authorities.
The PIL, filed against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Delhi Development Authority (DDA), and Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (DSIIDC), alleged unauthorized construction on properties purportedly owned by DSIIDC. The petitioner claimed that despite her representations to authorities, no action was taken against the property owner.
In response, counsel for the MCD presented a letter from DSIIDC granting permission to the property owner for necessary construction work to strengthen the structures. Additionally, documents including building plans and a certificate issued by the MCD were submitted to validate compliance with regulatory requirements.
The court, in its order, emphasized that the petition lacked adequate groundwork and investigation, dismissing it along with an application. Furthermore, a financial penalty of Rs 25,000 was imposed, to be equally borne by the respondents – MCD, DDA, and DSIIDC – within a stipulated four-week period.
Allegations were also raised during the proceedings that the PIL was intended to defame the authorities and possibly extort money, an accusation vehemently denied by the petitioner.
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s scrutiny of PILs concerning public interest matters, highlighting the importance of thorough preparation and substantiated claims in legal petitions. It sets a precedent for stringent adherence to procedural diligence in such litigations, ensuring transparency and fairness in addressing issues of alleged illegal constructions and regulatory compliance in urban development contexts.
The dismissal with costs serves as a cautionary tale for future litigants and reinforces the need for robust legal grounds and factual substantiation when challenging administrative decisions related to urban planning and construction activities in Delhi
