DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PRINCIPAL VOCATIONAL TRAINING COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated December 19, 1973 of Shri Prem Sagar, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi whereby the Principal, Vocational Training College and Surjit Malhan, Secretary of the institution, hereinafter referred to as respondents, were acquired of the charge under Section' 14 read with Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, hereinafter called "the Act".

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that Ramesh Chandra, Sectional Officer of the Delhi Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as "the Authority", inspected building No. J-30, New Delhi South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi, and found that Vocational Training College for Women was being run on the ground floor while the first floor was being used as hostel. The respondents, who were incharge of the institution and persons responsible to conduct the affairs thereof, were directed to vacate the non-conforming user of the building on the ground that the building fell within the residential zone shown in the Master Plan of Delhi and could not be used for the purpose it was being used. Nothing happened with the result that on April 23, 1973. Shri H. N. Fotedar, Secretary of the Authority, sanctioned prosecution of the respondents in his capacity as the officer authorised to sanction by virtue of Resolution No. 18 passed by the Authority on January 15, 1958. On the same day he, filed the complaint before the Magistrate.

(3.) The learned Magistrate took the view that Vocational Training College was a school and inasmuch as according to the use plan of the Residential Zone wherein the building was situated, the use as hostel, or school was a permitted use, there could be no objection as to use. He further took the view that the prosecution itself was not competent in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in B. T. Mehghani v. Delhi Development Authority, AIR 1974 Delhi 159 wherein this Court had held that the Master Plan had not specified any user of building as distinguished from land and the Authority had not placed on record any Zonal Development Plan indicating the way and the manner in which the building in dispute was to be used and, therefore, there was no question of any misuser or, in other words, of a user which was not in confirmity with the Master Plan. The result was that both the respondents were acquitted.