B T MENGHANI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respective petitioner in each of these writ petitions is the owner of a building. The buildings concerned are situate in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi South Extension Part II or Haus Khas. New Delhi. The buildings arc governed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as "the Municipal Act". Each of the petitioners is being prosecuted in the Court of a Judicial Magistrate in Delhi under sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Delhi Development Act. 1957, hereinafter referred to as "the Development Act" for an alleged contravention of the Master Plan of Delhi by using or permitting the use of the building otherwise than in conformity with the Master Plan which is alleged to be prohibited by section 14 of the Development Act.

(2.) The principal-respondent in these writ petitions is the Delhi Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as "the Authority" constituted under the Development Act. The Judicial Magistrate concerned is also a proforma party respondent. It is a matter of record and it is not disputed by the respondents that about a thousand similar prosecutions are pending in the courts of Judicial Magistrates in Delhi in respect of various buildings in various areas of Delhi covered by the Master Plan and that many of them have given rise to similar writ petitions which are pending in this Court. Similar petitions had earlier been filed and one such petition, Civil Writ No. 728 of 1970 was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court (Hardy and Deshpande, JJ.) by judgment reported in I. L. R. (1971) II Delhi 21 in the case of N. K. Vasuraj v. Delhi Development Authority and others. Various questions challenging the prosecutions were raised in this petition and these questions are set out at pages 22 and 23 of the aforesaid Report. In addition to these questions, a question was raised as to whether the prosecution had be launched by the prescribed authority under the Development Act. This question was decided against the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition and as to the other questions the Division Bench was of the view that they could be determined in the proper forum, namely, the criminal court concerned. The first of the other questions as formulated by the Division Bench was :-

(3.) After this decision, a host of other petitions similar to the ones we are dealing with were filed in this Court and the principal point which was urged was the same as the above quoted question. The Admission. Benches of this Court felt that this was purely a question of construction of section 14 of the Development Act and of the Master Plan and these writ petitions were admitted to a hearing. In view of the large number of writs filed and the importance of the question, the present writs were ordered to be placed before a Full Bench.