R P BAJAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners R.P. Bajaj and M/s.Sawan Paints were convicted by a Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi of an offence punishable under Section 29 (2) read with section 14 of the Delhi Development Act (for short 'the Act') and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 . It was directed that in default of payment of fine, R.P. Bajaj shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Both went in appeal which was dismissed on September 24, 1979 by Sh. R.D. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The present petition is directed against the aforesaid conviction and sentence.

(2.) On 26th June 1976 Shri S.K. Taneia, (Public Witness 2) Junior Engineer of Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA) inspected a vacant plot of land measuring 500 sq. yards bearing No. 13, Kaushalya Park, opposite G. Block Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. He found that the aforesaid plot was being used for storage of sanitary and hardware goods. O.I inquiry, he came to know that M/s. Sawan Paints, petitioner was a partnership firm of which R.P. Bajaj was a partrier, in charge and responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the said firm. Shri Taneja made a report Ex. P2. On receipt of that report in the office, an Additional Secretary (prosecutions) sent a notice to Shri R.P. Bajaj, petitioner to the effect that the latter should show cause within 15 days from the date of the issue of the notice as to why action should not be taken against the latter-under section 14 read with section 29 (2) of the Act rer naving used the aforesaid plot for commercial purpose as against the permissible use of the same for residential purposes. One Krishan Kumar sent reply Ex. P7 dated 15th August 1976 to the Additional Secretary, D.D.A.to the effect that the plot was commercial one. that the same was being used as such and that, therefore, there was no misuser of the plot.

(3.) After obtaining necessary sanction tinder the ACT, the Secretary, DDA filed a complaint(Ex.p8) for prosecuting the petitioners for committing an offence under section 29 (2) read with section 14 of the Act because they had put the plot to commercial use in contravention of the Master plan of Delhi which permitted the use of the plot for residential purposes.