Punita Bhardwaj vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Punita Bhardwaj, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 16.01.2018 and an order dated 08.07.2022, along with subsequent notices dated 02.08.2022 and 10.08.2022, issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and its authorities. The impugned order dated 08.07.2022 was passed pursuant to an order by the Appellate Tribunal, MCD (ATMCD) which had set aside a prior demolition order dated 29.01.2018. The ATMCD had remanded the matter for fresh decision after finding that the initial show cause notice was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the impugned orders did not specify the extent of unauthorized construction. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner's remedy lay with the ATMCD.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable in the present form. It noted that the petitioner had already approached the ATMCD on two prior occasions. The Court found no specific grounds to entertain the instant writ petition, especially since the impugned speaking order was passed in pursuance of directions issued by the ATMCD, and thus, should ideally be challenged before the same tribunal. The Court relied on the principle that writ petitions under Article 226 are generally not entertained when an alternative statutory remedy is available, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others v. Commercial Steel Limited. The Court did not go into the merits of the contentions raised by either party. As a measure of interim relief, the Court directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner for a period of two weeks to enable her to approach the ATMCD. The continuation of interim protection beyond this period was made subject to the orders of the ATMCD.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present writ petition is maintainable before this Court, or should the petitioner be relegated to the statutory remedy before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD (ATMCD), under Section 347B of the DMC Act, 1957? The petitioner argued that the impugned orders lacked specificity regarding the unauthorized construction and sought to challenge them directly. The respondents contended that the petitioner had a clear alternative and efficacious remedy before the ATMCD, as established by previous proceedings and supported by judicial precedents. They cited a previous writ petition filed by the petitioner which was disposed of with a direction to approach the ATMCD, and a Supreme Court judgment in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others v. Commercial Steel Limited, emphasizing that writ petitions under Article 226 are generally not entertained when an alternative remedy exists, unless exceptional circumstances like breach of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of a statute are present.