Hima Kohli, J. - (1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner/Society praying inter alia for directions to the respondent/MCD to initiate action against the unauthorized construction existing in property bearing No. A -1/19, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi, owned by respondent No. 5.
(2.) Notice was issued on the present petition vide order dated 28.07.2010. On the said date, counsel for the respondent/MCD was directed to produce the sanctioned/regularization plans of the property in question and to take instructions whether inspection of the property could be done by the petitioner or any other independent person so as to verify whether the subject premises had been built in accordance with the sanctioned plan or not. Vide order dated 14.09.2010, the owner of the subject premises, who had not been impleaded by the petitioner initially, was permitted to be impleaded as a co -respondent. On the very same date, statement of the counsel for the respondent/MCD was recorded to the effect that the requisite sanctions, obtained by respondent No. 5 from the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) before carrying out additions/alterations in the subject premises, had also been placed on record. On 01.03.2011, counsel for the respondent/MCD handed over an inspection report of the subject premises, on the basis of an inspection undertaken on 22.07.2010, which revealed that the additional construction existing on the first, second and third floors of the premises, had been duly regularized on 11.12.2007 and 20.04.2010 respectively. The said inspection report also enclosed with it a copy of the letter dated 05.06.2008 issued by the ASI, granting sanction for construction in respect of the subject premises.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent/MCD submits that the construction existing on the first, second and a part of third floor of the subject premises has been got compounded as per the applicable Rules in that regard and the grievance of the petitioner that prior permissions had not been obtained by respondent No. 5 before carrying out alterations in the subject premises, is belied by the NOCs dated 25.02.2005 and 05.06.2008 issued by ASI to respondent No. 5. She draws the attention of this Court to an order dated 17.08.2010 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) on the second appeal preferred before it by Mr. Nijhawan, General Secretary of the petitioner/Society in respect of the subject premises, wherein the allegation of the appellant/Society that false information had been provided by MCD with regard to approval of sanction plans of the subject premises, was held to be invalid. It was also observed that the appellant/Society had made the allegations of unauthorized construction without any proof and consequently, the penalty proceedings initiated against the officers of MCD were dropped.;