DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MARBLE POINT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the application of Shri Jayant Bhushan Sr. Advocate against the order dated 20th August, 2008 disposing of the Letters Patent Appeal of the appellant and seeking review/recall of order by which order this court had also observed without referring the matter to Bar Council for appropriate action against applicant and without imposing any penalty or punishment that in all fairness, the applicant should not have appeared on behalf of the writ petitioners/respondents in the LPA as he had appeared on behalf of DDA/Appellant in the earlier writ petition filed by the same writ petitioners in respect of allotment of alternative sites to them in Marble Market Papankala under the Scheme of Rehabilitation of Marble Traders who had been removed from the place of their business.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to this present application is detailed hereinafter. The respondents in the present LPA were carrying on the business of marble trading at Mehrauli- Badarpur Road since 1988. They were removed from their respective sites on 14th February, 1995 by the appellant/Delhi Development Authority on the ground that they were encroachers on public property. Subsequently, on 26th March, 1996, pursuant to the orders passed by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I & Ors., 94 marble traders operating from the same locality were removed by the appellant. These 94 traders who were removed pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court were allotted alternate sites by the appellant under the Scheme of Rehabilitation of Marble Traders in Pappankalan, however, the respondents herein were denied allotment.

(3.) The respondents preferred a writ petition being WP(C) 1674/1997 (earlier writ petition) seeking a writ of mandamus to DDA to allot alternate shops or sites to them on the terms and conditions as applicable to the other 94 persons who had been found to be eligible for allotment of sites. The prayer clause (in WP(C) No. 1674/1997) filed by the respondents was as follows