RAVI HASIJA Vs. M C D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ¢â ¬ The petitioner has been summoned to stand trial in case filed by the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short 'MCD') for offences punishable under Sections 347/461 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (in short the 'Act') on the allegations that the petitioner has been using a part of his residential premises at No. E-1, Ajay Enclave, New Delhi for training/teaching in typing, short-hand and computer education which is not permissible in residential premises and constitutes violation of Section 347 of the Act and punishable under Section 461 of the Act. The petitioner contends that the petitioner has been using a small part of the residential premises for a long time without any protest from the respondent and that the activity is done only to the extent permitted by the respondent and hence constitutes no offence. The petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint case which is opposed by the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner has set up the order of the Executive Engineer (Building), West Zone of the respondent bearing No. D/1480/EE(Pr)/WZ/03 dated 14.11.2003 where the Executive Engineer has considered whether the petitioner has used the premises in contravention of Section 347 of the Act. What has been found by the Executive Engineer is as under:

(3.) It is quite clear from the above paragraph that MCD considers that 50 sq. metres of the property and plot No. E-l, Ajay Enclave, New Delhi to be the area in which the activity of running training classes in typing, short-hand, etc. can be permitted. It is also clear that the petitioner has been using only 35 sq. metre of the property for running his classes. Therefore, so far as the respondent is concerned there should not have been any ground for objection. The Executive Engineer has, however, gone one step further by saying that the petitioner was owner only of the half of the property and, therefore, could have used only 25 sq. metres. This stand could not be justified by the learned Counsel for the respondent appearing before the MCD. Nor do I find any justification for this view of the Executive Engineer. The respondent is concerned with the extent of the area in that property which can be put to professional use. Since no other part of the property is being used for similar activity the area of 50 sq. metres could be used for the purpose. The area actually being used is only 35 sq. metres and, therefore, it cannot be said that there has been any violation of Section 347 of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, could not have been prosecuted or summoned for the offence. The complaint against the petitioner bearing No. 286/2003 titled MCD v. Ravi Hasija is quashed. Ordered accordingly.