A K TRAKRU Vs. M C D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this letters patent appeal, the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition of MCD (WP 6935/ 2003 dated 27th February, 2004) has been questioned.

(2.) The first issue raised here is the same as in LPA 233/2003, namely what is meant by to give a notice, as per Sections 126(2) and (4)(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereafter called the Act). We have today delivered judgment dismissing the appeal of the MCD. In that judgment, it has been held that a notice is said to be given under Section 126, not on its date of dispatch under registered post, but, as per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, read with Section 444 of the Act, when it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post, unless a contrary date is proved.

(3.) The judgment under appeal dated 27.2.2004, has relied upon the decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.K. Khandeliwal, 101 (2002) DLT 169. That judgment, as noticed by the learned Single Judge, was in the context of the making of an order under Section 126(4) and not concerned with the expression give a notice under Section 126. Besides, the said judgment has been set aside in the Division Bench judgment dated (WA No. 938/2003, R.K. Khandelwal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi decided on 25.8.2004.