'Are We Post Office?' Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Filed Against Illegal Establishments Without Awaiting MCD's Reply To Representation

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (August 13) refused to entertain a PIL claiming "illegal establishments" were being run on certain land, after noting that the petitioner had filed the plea within 10 days of filing his representation with the MCD on July 23 without waiting for a response. A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing a PIL seeking direction to respondents to take action against alleged illegal and unauthorized establishments and commercial activities in the nature of running banquet halls, cafes, scrapyards, car washing centres etc., on certain land. Another prayer made was that direction be issued to authorities to ensure that electricity connection to illegal establishments be disconnected. After hearing the matter the court in its order dictated:"Petitioner instituted proceedings on August 2. Cause sought be raised in petition has first been represented to Municipal Corporation only on July 23…petitioner appears to be in haste. That casts a shadow on his bonafides in instituting instant proceedings as PIL. Once a representation was made to Municipal Corporation for redressal of his grievances on July 23, petitioner ought to have waited and given some reasonable time to Municipal Corporation to act on his representation. However instead of giving reasonable time to the authorities the petition is filed hardly within 10 days from date on which representation is made. We cannot appreciate such conduct on part of petitioner".The petitioner's counsel argued that the banquet halls in question did not have adequate capacity for accommodating guests. The court asked the counsel as to when the banquet halls had come up. The counsel said that the halls had come up in different years. During the hearing the court orally asked the petitioner's counsel if he had approached the authorities to which the counsel said that he had written to the MCD. He submitted that he followed up office of the commissioner and they had said that the matter had been forwarded to the concerned zone. The court thereafter orally asked the counsel that the representation was filed on July 23 and in August PIL was filed, to which the counsel said that the authorities have not done anything. The court thereafter said that reasonable time has to be given to them to respond. "Then your lordship may direct them to treat this petition as..." the counsel said. To this court the court orally remarked:"Do not take PIL jurisdiction so lightly…Are we supposed to be post office? You are approaching authorities on 23rd July & petition has come up today in August. Not even a month...".The court also noted that on issue of alleged illegal electricity connection raised by the petitioner in the PIL, the petitioner had approached the high court without first approaching the authorities. "In view of aforesaid we are not inclined to entertain this PIL. At this juncture counsel for petitioner prays he may be permitted to withdraw with liberty to approach authorities...petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach concerned authorities," the court said. It further said if petitioner approaches authorities, his grievances shall be attended to and action which maybe warranted will be takenCase title: AMAN SINGH V/s MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THORUGH ITS COMMISSIONER & ORS.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 964W.P.(C)-12191/2025

'Are We Post Office?' Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Filed Against Illegal Establishments Without Awaiting MCD's Reply To Representation

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags