AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Sodhi, J.—Nobody appears for the DDA today. Even on the previous dates of hearing, that are, 13th January, 2005, 23rd February, 2005 and 18th March, 2005, nobody appeared for the DDA. This matter has been adjourned time and again. Since the DDA is not interested in the matter, it has become essential to dispose of the same without their assistance.
This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 25th November, 1981, of the Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.Appeal No. 126/80, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal arising out of the Order dated 24th September, 1980, of the Metropolitan Magistrate, holding the Petitioners guilty u/s 29(2)/14 of the Delhi Development Act and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine on behalf of Petitioner No.1 herein to issue attachment warrant against it and in case of default of payment of fine on behalf of Petitioner No. 2 herein to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the Additional Sessions Judge, are as under :
"Brief facts which led to the present appeal are as under : that Shri J.K.Triguna J.E. Inspected the premises bearing No. 4830/24, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi on 3.1.79. He found the appellant No. 1 functioning on the ground floor of the above said property (hereinafter referred to as disputed property for the sake of convenience) under the name and style of M/s Khatri Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. The appellant No. 1 are a banking company. The appellant No. 2 was their Secretary Shri B.L.Mehra is the Chairman of the appellant No. 1. They were in charge of and responsible to the appellant No. 1 for the conduct of their business. He submitted his report vide Ex.PW.2/A. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants vide Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D. He obtained the necessary sanction for filing a complaint against the appellants. Thereafter he initiated proceedings against the appellants u/s 29(2)/14 of the D.D.Act."
It is contended by Counsel for the Petitioners that the admitted position in this case is that the building plan in respect of the concerned premises was sanctioned on 12th May, 1939. He submits that this sanction was prior to the enforcement of Zonal Development Plan and Therefore, until rules are framed in this respect, the Petitioners cannot be prosecuted for an offence u/s 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act and are protected under Proviso (2) to Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act. He contends that this position at law has been well-settled by various judgments of this Court as also of the Supreme Court. He draws my attention to the judgments delivered in Faqir Chand Vs. Shri Ram Rattan Bhanot, , Lal Singh and Ors. v. The Lt. Governor, Delhi and Ors. 1971 (2) Delhi 392, D.D.A. v. H.S. Kalra 1981 R R 536, D.D.A. v. Lodha & Co. and Anr. 2004 (I) DCLR DELHI 395 and Delhi Development Authority v. Ganga Singh 19(1980) DLT 354.
Heard Counsel for the Petitioners and have gone through the judgment under challenge as also the material available on record. It appears to me that once the building plan was sanctioned prior to the enforcement of the Zonal Development Plan, in the absence of rules framed the Petitioner would enjoy the protection under Proviso (2) to Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act. The same has been held in the judgments cited above by learned Counsel for the Petitioners. In that view of the matter, I set aside the judgment dated 25th November, 1981.
Crl.Rev.P. 101/1982 is allowed and disposed of.