Full Judgment Text
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 92/2025, CM APPL. 7375/2025, CM APPL. 7376/2025 &
CM APPL.7377/2025
COLONEL AJAY YADAV & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Abhik Chimni, Ms. Pranjal
Abrol, Mr. Maaroof, Mr. Gurupal
Singh and Ms. Shreya Bajpai,
Advocates.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF
DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Mrs. K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S.
Akhtar and Mr. Devendre Kumar,
Advocates for R-1/L&B
Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocate for R-2.
Mr. Tushar Sannu and Mr. Hardik
Saxena, Advocates for R-3/DDA.
th
% Date of Decision: 7 February, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
J U D G E M E N T
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.: (ORAL)
LPA 92/2025
1. Present appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent
assailing the impugned judgement dated 20.01.2025 in W.P.(C) 352/2025
titled “Colonel Ajay Yadav & Anr vs. Government of National Capital
Signature Not Verified
LPA 92/2025 Page 1 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:MADHU SARDANA
Signing Date:11.02.2025
12:52:07
Territory of Delhi & Ors.” , whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed
the writ petition filed by the appellants on the grounds of alternate remedy;
embargo of locus standi and forum shopping.
2. It is the case of the appellants that appellants are individual residents
of Section B, Pocket – 1, Vasant Kunj since 20-30 years and members of
Vasant Kunj Residents Welfare Association (hereinafter referred to as
“RWA” ). The appellants’ states that they have filed the underlying writ
petition challenging the MCD Sanction letter dated 13.05.2025 and the
subsequent orders/clearances granted in terms of construction of a housing
complex at Khasra No. 1230/2 (New) admeasuring 6 Bighas and 7 Biswa in
Sector-B, Pocket-1, Vasant Kunj situated in the South Central
Morphological Ridge.
3. Mr. Chimni, learned counsel for the appellants at the outset, submits
that the learned Single Judge has overlooked the crucial issue raised in the
underlying writ petition. In that, he states that though the RWA had filed a
writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.11283/2024 raising certain issues, yet had
not raised a pertinent question which would be necessary to adjudicate
before a writ Court can pass any effective justifiable order. Arguing
vociferously, he states that the issue covered in para 5 of the prayer clause of
the underlying writ petition is not only the edifice on which other prayers
and substantial questions of law are predicated, but also the only issue which
the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, ought to judicially examine
so as to ensure there is no injustice caused.
4. According to the learned counsel, though the other prayers in the writ
petition filed by the RWA as also the underlying writ petition are seemingly
similar, yet, there is a substantial difference in those. He attempts to
Signature Not Verified
LPA 92/2025 Page 2 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:MADHU SARDANA
Signing Date:11.02.2025
12:52:07
persuade that prayer 5 of the underlying writ petition seeks consideration,
examination and adjudication as to whether the decision of the Expert
Appraisal Committee dated 29.11.2024 granting conditional clearance to
respondent no.4 for construction of a housing complex at the subject
property ought not to be set-aside at the first instance itself, being violative
of the guidelines pertaining to Morphological Area of Delhi. He claims that
unless the said issue, which according to him is the core question, is
adjudicated at the first instance, the other issues may really not reach the
root of the dispute. In other words, his contention is that other issues would
only be a consequential effect to the issue raised in the underlying writ
petition.
5. That apart, he also forcefully contends that the right of a citizen under
Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly where there is an infraction of a
inviolable fundamental right of a citizen, even if a writ petition filed by a
larger body or an association of which the said individual is a part, is
pending adjudication, remains unfettered and untrammelled. Thus, on that
basis, he contends that the right of the appellants to approach this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution remains unaffected, pristine and pure.
He states that the learned Single Judge misdirected herself on this
fundamental principle of constitutional right of the appellants. He thus,
prays that the impugned judgment be set aside and the underlying writ
petition be directed to be taken up for adjudication.
6. Having heard Mr. Abhik Chimni, learned counsel for the appellants,
we find that fundamentally the submissions are on an erroneous
interpretation of the constitutional rights.
7. In order to have clarity as to what prompted the learned Single Judge
Signature Not Verified
LPA 92/2025 Page 3 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:MADHU SARDANA
Signing Date:11.02.2025
12:52:07
to disagree with the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, it
would be apposite to extract the relevant paragraphs where the core issue
were dealt with. Para 8 of the impugned judgment reads thus:
“8. Clearly, Petitioners have raised two broad issues in this writ petition
i.e. construction of the subject property in a morphological ridge without
clearance of the Supreme Court and RMB and that the sanction granted
by MCD vide letter dated 13.05.2024 with respect to the subject property
falls foul of Clause 3.2.4 of Notification dated 04.07.2018, issued in
exercise of powers conferred under Section 57(1) of the Delhi
Development Act, 1957. Both these issues have been raised by the RWA
of which the Petitioners are members in W.P.(C)11283/2024 and in
which Court declined to grant interim relief. To my mind, Petitioners are
only forum hunting by filing the present writ petition being well-aware of
the earlier writ petition and the application filed therein raising a ground
that the subject property of Respondent No.6 falls in the Morphological
Ridge Area of Delhi. Moreover, as rightly pointed out on behalf of the
Respondents, Petitioners have failed to disclose that in
W.P.(C)11283/2024 interim relief of stay against the alleged
unauthorized construction was declined by the Court vide order dated
11.09.2024. It is the first principle of writ jurisdiction that a person must
come to Court with clean hands. For reasons best known to the
Petitioners, they have not disclosed material facts and the writ petition is
only an attempt to seek interim relief, declined in W.P.(C) 11283/2024.”
We find from a plain reading of the aforesaid paragraph, that the
learned Single Judge has manifestly crystallized the basic issue raised in the
underlying writ petition and has examined the same. We do not find any
reason to interdict the sound reasoning of the learned Single Judge in the
aforesaid paragraph. However, we find it appropriate to supplement the
reasoning with our own analysis.
8. In order to satisfy our conscience, we deem it appropriate to extract
the prayers in the W.P.(C) No. 11283/2024 filed by the RWA in
juxtaposition to the ones made in the underlying writ petition. The same in
seriatim are as under:
W.P.(C) 11283/2024:-
Signature Not Verified
LPA 92/2025 Page 4 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:MADHU SARDANA
Signing Date:11.02.2025
12:52:07
“a) CERTIORARI, thereby quashing sanction dated 13.05.2024
[Annexure P-1] granted by the Respondent No. 3 with respect to the
development over the Subject Property being land situated at Khasra No.
1230/2 (New) admeasuring 6 Bighas and 7 Biswa situated in Sector-B,
Pocket-1 in Vasant Kunj Housing Scheme, New Delhi;
b) PROHIBITION, thereby restraining Respondent Nos. 1-3 from
granting any further Sanction or approval with respect to any
development over the Subject Property, being land situated at Khasra
No. 1230/2 (New) admeasuring 6 Bighas and 7 Biswa situated in Sector-
B, Pocket-1 in Vasant Kunj Housing Scheme, New Delhi;
c) CERTIORARI, thereby quashing the Minutes of the 368th Screening
Committee Meeting as approved by the 368th Screening Committee
Meeting dated 22.04.2019, and 370th Screen Committee Meeting dated
17.06.2019 in respect of the subject property [Annexure P-2 (Colly)],
being land situated at Khasra No. 1230/2 (New) admeasuring 6 Bighas
and 7 Biswa situated in Sector-B, Pocket-1 in Vasant Kunj Housing
Scheme, New Delhi;
d) PROHIBITION, thereby restraining the Respondents from permitting
or actually raising of any construction on the subject property contrary
to brochure (Annexure P-1) and the original layout plan (Annexure P-2)
as demonstrated to the public by the Respondents;
e) MANDAMUS, commanding the Respondent No. 1 – 3 to restore the
Subject Property, in terms of the promise as made through the brochure
(Annexure P-7) and the layout plan (Annexure P-8) as demonstrated to
the public by the Respondents;
f) CERTIORARI, thereby quashing the order dated 07.12.2012, passed by
the Ld. PO, Appellate Tribunal, MCD allowed the appeal No.
24/AT/MCD/2009 (Annexure P-3) as well as final order and judgment
dated 16.07.2016 passed by the Ld. District and Sessions Judge in MCD
Appeal No. 04/13 (Annexure P-4);”
W.P.(C) 352/2023:-
“1. Issue a Writ/Order/Direction restraining any party, including the
Respondents from allowing or effecting any development/construction
activities at Khasra no. 1230/2 (New) admeasuring 6 bighas and 7 biswa
in Sector-B, Pocket-1, Vasant Kunj;
2. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ/Order/Direction
restraining Respondent No. 1-3 from granting any further Sanction or
Signature Not Verified
LPA 92/2025 Page 5 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:MADHU SARDANA
Signing Date:11.02.2025
12:52:07
approval with respect to any development over the Subject Property,
being land situated at Khasra No. 1230/2 (New) admeasuring 6 Bighas
and 7 Biswa situated in Sector-B, Pocket-1 in Vasant Kunj Housing
Scheme, New Delhi;
3. Issue a Writ/Order/Direction setting aside sanction dated 13.05.2024
granted by the Respondent No. 2 with respect to the development over the
Subject Property being land situated at Khasra No. 1230/2 (New)
admeasuring 6 Bighas and 7 Biswa situated in Sector-B, Pocket-1 in
Vasant Kunj Housing Scheme, New Delhi;
4. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ/Order/Direction setting
aside the Minutes of the 368th Screening Committee Meeting dated
22.04.2019, and 370th Screen Committee Meeting dated 17.06.2019
approving the grant of sanction in respect of the subject property, being
land situated at Khasra No. 1230/2 (New) admeasuring 6 Bighas and 7
Biswa situated in Sector-B, Pocket- 1 in Vasant Kunj Housing Scheme,
New Delhi;
5. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ/Order/Direction setting
aside the decision of the Expert Appraisal Committee dated 29.11.2024
granting conditional clearance to Respondent No. 4 for construction of a
Housing Complex at Subject Property being land situated at Khasra No.
1230/2 (New) admeasuring 6 Bighas and 7 Biswa situated in Sector-B,
Pocket-1 in Vasant Kunj Housing Scheme, New Delhi;
A fair comparison brings to fore the fact that there is practically no
difference in the prayers contained in both the writ petitions. In fact, the
prayers made in the underlying writ petition are identical except for the
manner in which they have been expressed. Learned counsel for the
appellants had laid great emphasis on prayer no.5 of the underlying writ
petition being distinctive and unique to stand on its own, notwithstanding
the other prayers, is misplaced, fallacious and unmerited. A careful
examination of the relief sought in prayer no.5 of the underlying writ
petition would reveal that the same deals with a decision rendered by the
Expert Appraisal Committee dated 29.11.2024 for grant of conditional
clearance to respondent no.4 for construction of a housing complex at the
Signature Not Verified
LPA 92/2025 Page 6 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:MADHU SARDANA
Signing Date:11.02.2025
12:52:07
subject property which falls in the Morphological Ridge Area of Delhi. A
perusal of the prayers contained in the writ petition filed by the RWA clearly
th
shows that it has sought quashing of 368 Screening Committee Meeting
th
dated 22.04.2019 and 370 Screening Committee Meeting dated
17.06.2019; quashing of sanction dated 13.05.2024 in respect of
development over the subject property amongst other prayers. The prayer
no.5 in the underlying writ petition seeks quashing of the conditional
clearance granted by the Expert Appraisal Committee dated 29.11.2024. Ex
facie , this decision is subsequent to the previous sanctioning order noted
above. Logically, the said decision of the Expert Appraisal Committee
would be subsumed in the other prayers of the writ petition filed by the
RWA which may and can be taken note of and appropriate directions be
passed by the learned Single Judge in seisin of the said writ petition. Thus,
the apprehension of the appellants that the same may not be considered by
the learned Single Judge is unfounded. We are therefore, not persuaded to
accept this submission.
9. Consequent to the aforesaid analysis, we find the filing of the
underlying writ petition, impermissible. This gathers all the more
seriousness inasmuch as the appellants are admittedly members of the said
RWA. In case such actions are permitted, the Courts would be flooded with
frivolous and multiple multitude of litigations on the common subject. We
cannot countenance any such situation. For this reason too, we concur with
the findings of the learned Single Judge that the appellants appears to
indulge in forum shopping. In fact, learned Single Judge has also recorded a
finding of fact that the appellants herein failed to disclose that in W.P.(C)
11283/2024, interim relief of stay against the alleged unauthorised
Signature Not Verified
LPA 92/2025 Page 7 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:MADHU SARDANA
Signing Date:11.02.2025
12:52:07
construction was declined by the Court vide order dated 11.09.2024. This
assumes seriousness as a person seeking discretionary relief must approach
the Court with clean hands.
10. For the reasons stated above and concurring with the reasoning
rendered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, we are
inclined to and accordingly dismiss the appeal in limine .
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
FEBRUARY 7, 2025/ kct
Signature Not Verified
LPA 92/2025 Page 8 of 8
Digitally Signed
By:MADHU SARDANA
Signing Date:11.02.2025
12:52:07