AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjiv Khanna, J.—This is an application for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16th September, 2009. On 24th March, 2009, a detailed order was passed on the basis of the photographs taken by the private respondent on 8th January, 2009. It was alleged that the petitioner No. 2 and his brother Mr. B.K. Malik were doing jewellery business under the name and style of B.K. Jewellery and their shop was located just behind the hoardings. The petitioners were directed to file an affidavit in response to the contention raised by the respondent and photographs placed on record. In the meanwhile, the respondents MCD and Delhi Police were directed to have a meeting in view of the stand taken by the Delhi Police. Delhi Police was also asked to file an additional affidavit.
Order dated 21st July, 2009 records that the petitioner had not filed any affidavit. The said order further records that the counsel for the petitioners had made repeated efforts to contract her clients, but they had not responded. Directions were given that DCP (Traffic), Delhi Police would inspect the site and submit report. Delhi Police was directed to report whether any fatal accident had occurred at the location.
In this application for restoration, it is stated that criminal cases are pending against the petitioner No. 2, he is not traceable and the petitioner No. 4 had shifted his house and, therefore, did not receive any communication. The application does not indicate whether the petitioner No. 3 was aware of the orders passed and whether he had taken any steps to contact the Advocate. The petitioner No. 1 is an association of shop keepers. It is difficult to accept that they were not aware of the present writ petition and the orders passed by the Court. Mere fact, that the petitioner No. 2 was not traceable and criminal cases were pending against him, does not justify failure to furnish information and respond to the communications of the Advocate.
At the same time, the report of Delhi Traffic Police states that hoardings at the said location should not be allowed to continue as road accidents can occur. The Court had issued directions in the order dated 21st July, 2009 in this regard to DCP (Traffic), Delhi Police.
In these circumstances, I allow the present application subject to payment of costs of Rs. 20,000/- by the petitioners which will be equally shared amongst respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5. The costs will be paid within 15 days by cheque. It is also clarified that the Court will be primarily concerned with the question of road accidents, safety and traffic deficiency. The question whether the hoardings obstruct and have detrimental effect on the business of the petitioners will not be a relevant criterion and will not be gone into and considered by the Court.
W.P.(C) No. 5505/2007
The DCP (Traffic), Delhi Police and MCD will comply with the order dated 21st July, 2009. The respondent, MCD will file on record their latest policy and judgment of the Supreme Court relating to hoardings.
Relist on 20th May, 2010.