LAWS(DLH)-2009-4-114

SARSWATI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. STATE

Decided On April 24, 2009
SARSWATI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th March, 1992 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, new Delhi, affirming the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby and whereunder the petitioners were found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 14 read with Section 29 (2) of the Delhi development Act and each of the petitioners was sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/ -.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner No. 1 is a registered Society and is running a school in the name and style of M/s. Holly Innocent Public School, at premises No. B-3/175, Janakpuri, New Delhi. The petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary and the petitioner No. 3 is/was the President of the Society. The Delhi development Authority filed a complaint against the accused persons alleging that on 20th October, 1986 the premises bearing No. B-3/175, janakpuri, New Delhi was inspected by the staff of the Delhi Development authority and on inspection it was found that a school was being run in the said premises by M/s. Saraswati Educational Society. It was also alleged that according to the provisions of the Master Plan, the premises can only be used for residential purpose and that user of the same for a purpose other than residential is a violation of Section 14 read with Section 29 (2) of the delhi Development Act.

(3.) AS already stated, on the basis of the evidence on record, both the courts below found the petitioners guilty of an offence punishable under section 29 (2) read with Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and as such, convicted them under the said Sections and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine the petitioners no. 2 and 3 were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each, whereas the fine from the petitioner No. 1 was directed to be recovered through warrants of attachment.