JITENDER KUMAR Vs. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal. Petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the L & DO, declining consent to the petitioner for converting a window into a door opening. This case has a chequered history. Petitioner had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction, seeking a restraint on the MCD from interfering with the petitioner's right to convert the window into a door opening and put up an iron shutter among other relief. This suit was dismissed. Petitioner went in appeal. The appeal was partly allowed by the Additional District Judge, permitting the petitioner to put up a shutter on the window opening. Petitioner had preferred a Regular Second Appeal against the said appellate order, which appeal was also dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner was given liberty, to approach the L & DO for grant of permission under the lease for conversion of the window into a door opening.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted before me that he would like to rely on the Municipal Bye-laws to urge that there was no prohibition on the window opening being converted into a door opening. For this purpose, he wished to take me through the Bye-laws. It is not necessary to go into this exercise for the purposes of disposal of the present writ petition. The L & DO has declined consent on the ground that it would interfere with architectural facade. It would be worthwhile to reproduce para 4 of the preliminary reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. "In reply to para 4 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the site in question has been inspected by CPWD on 22.9.99 and it has been reported that shop no. 414 and all corner shops facing the south side road are connected with a wall dad in red sand stone having stone chajjas, stone jali, corbelling etc., a facade made in a style of Architecture which is derived from our-Architectural Heritage. To conserve the Architectural features of the PG Market, it has further been reported that the following steps needed to be taken:-

(3.) From the foregoing, it would be seen that the L & DO has declined permission for alterations and additions for reasons, recorded above. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that there have been certain violations by others. This does not give the petitioner right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India to seek the same.