UNIQUE INNOVATION PVT LTD Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order is in continuation of yesterday's order i.e. of 2nd February, 2011. In reply to the queries posed yesterday, the counsel for the respondent MCD states that neither any second inspection was carried out nor any order of sealing passed or served on the petitioner. He however states that the action of sealing against the petitioner was in pursuance to the inspection of 14th December, 2010 by the Members of the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court. He has in Court handed over a copy of the file noting recording that the basement of the motel of the petitioner was found being used in contravention of MPD-2021/Building Bye-Laws, 1983 and in view thereof notice under Section 345-A of the DMC Act was approved to be issued to the petitioner. It is however admitted that in the evening of 27th December, 2010 an unattested affidavit, as appearing at pages 36 and 37 of the paper book was submitted by the petitioner to the MCD.

(2.) IT is further informed that since in the said affidavit the petitioner had undertaken to use the basement for storage purposes only and which storage purpose is also not permitted, the action of sealing as already scheduled for 28th December, 2010 was carried out. In this regard a copy of the Notification dated 16th June, 1995 of the DDA is handed over prescribing the use of basement sanctioned free from FAR, for purposes only of airconditioning plant, filtration plant, electric sub-station, parking and other essential services. On the basis thereof it is contended that the use to which the petitioner undertook to put the basement i.e. of storage was also not permitted use and hence no need was felt to carry out any other inspection or pass an order and the basement was sealed.

(3.) IN response thereto the petitioner submitted a reply dated 27 th December, 2010 stating inter alia as under:-