ASHOK KUMAR Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
LAWS(SC)-1994-9-151
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
September 09,1994
ASHOK KUMAR
Appellant
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
GAGAN SHARMA VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-4-218] [REFERRED TO]VANDANA SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
SHARDA PRASAD TRIPATHI VS. SELECTION COMMITTEE [LAWS(ALL)-2011-7-162] [REFERRED TO]
HARBANS SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDERA KUMAR GUPTA VS. U P POWER CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-84] [REFERRED TO]
SAMSAR ALI VS. SECRETARY, INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE AND RESEARCH & OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2017-5-83] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI BUS SERVICE VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-7-109] [REFERRED TO]
VIJENDRA SINGH VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(MPH)-2009-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA VS. U P POWER CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-238] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN ART EMPORIUM VS. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INVESTMENT CORPN [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-5-12] [REFFERED TO : (1994 AIR SCW 5155 1994 AIR SCW 5155 : (1994) 6 SCC 97 9]
NARANG LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-3-46] [REFERRED TO]
TILK RICE VS. DGM UNION BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA NARAIN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-12-35] [REFERRED TO]
ARSIYA BANO VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-139] [REFERRED TO]
JAFARULLAH VS. KOTA OPEN UNIVERSITY [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
INDRA BAHADUR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1997-1-107] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. STATE PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-193] [REFERRED TO]
SRI RATAN KR. SAHU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2002-3-72] [REFERRED TO]
ROSHAN LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-9-38] [REFERRED TO]
PROJECT MANAGER, CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN SERVICE U.P. JAL NIGAM VS. AJAY KUMAR MAURYA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2003-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The litigation ultimately ended in Delhi Development Authority v. Surgical Cooperative Industrial Estate Ltd. ' and the matters were disposed of by a bench of three Judges of this court with the following directions :
"We, therefore, partly allow the appeal of the Delhi Development Authority insofar as these ten members are concerned and direct that on their depositing the amount in respect of plots calculated at 50% of Rs. 10,756. 00 per square metre the Delhi Development Authority will allot 98 them the plots at or near about the site in question. As the total amount. to be paid would depend on the area of the plot, we would direct the Delhi Development Authority to communicate the amount which each of these ten members will be required to pay at the above rate and on receipt of such communication the said ten members will make the payment within one month failing which they will forfeit their right to claim the plots allotted to them. Be it noted that no extension of time will be given because this is the third indulgence given to them. The appeals will stand disposed of as above with no order as to costs. "now the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed containing (sic contending) that contrary to the orders and also the letter was issued on 1/7/1994 directed the appellants to pay excess amounts and that, therefore, they should be protected by mandamus under Article 32 of the Constitution. The order passed by this court exercising power under Article 136, became final and writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable. The writ petition is sheer abuse of the process of the court and so dismissed with costs of rupees thirty thousand, which the. Supreme court Legal Aid Committee is entitled to recover from the petitioners.
(2.)The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
"We, therefore, partly allow the appeal of the Delhi Development Authority insofar as these ten members are concerned and direct that on their depositing the amount in respect of plots calculated at 50% of Rs. 10,756. 00 per square metre the Delhi Development Authority will allot 98 them the plots at or near about the site in question. As the total amount. to be paid would depend on the area of the plot, we would direct the Delhi Development Authority to communicate the amount which each of these ten members will be required to pay at the above rate and on receipt of such communication the said ten members will make the payment within one month failing which they will forfeit their right to claim the plots allotted to them. Be it noted that no extension of time will be given because this is the third indulgence given to them. The appeals will stand disposed of as above with no order as to costs. "now the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed containing (sic contending) that contrary to the orders and also the letter was issued on 1/7/1994 directed the appellants to pay excess amounts and that, therefore, they should be protected by mandamus under Article 32 of the Constitution. The order passed by this court exercising power under Article 136, became final and writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable. The writ petition is sheer abuse of the process of the court and so dismissed with costs of rupees thirty thousand, which the. Supreme court Legal Aid Committee is entitled to recover from the petitioners.
(2.)The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.