RAVINDER GOEL Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by a summoning order issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on a complaint preferred under Section 347/461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.

(2.) The MCD in its complaint dated 05.11.05 had alleged that the petitioners were guilty of violation of provisions of the Act inasmuch as they had changed the use of the property in question from residential to commercial by using it for an office in the name and style 'M/s IACM Computers'.

(3.) The MCD had alleged that the sanctioned use of the premises was only residential. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a copy of the summoning order issued in this case on 06.01.03. One of the main grounds urged was that the order was a stereotyped one and issued in a cyclostyled format. Counsel contended that this clearly discloses the utter non-application of mind by the Court. He relied upon the judgment in D.A Mehta and Ors. V. The Regional Director, ESI. Corporation. 1991 (3) crimes 72 and other judgments being Flex Foods Ltd. V. Registrar of Companies(Delhi and Harayana) 1996 (37) DRJ 60 and Charnjeet V. DDA and Anr. 94 (2001) DLT 334.