1998 (11) TMI 683 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit.
2. Adequate and equally efficacious alternate remedy under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.
3. Bar of jurisdiction under Section 347-E of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.
4. Availability of alternative remedy and bar under Section 41(H) of the Specific Relief Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Suit:
The primary issue addressed was whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs was maintainable. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from demolishing or sealing their property, alleging that no pre-decisional notice was served, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The court examined the allegations and the procedural requirements under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, particularly the necessity of a pre-decisional notice before any demolition action.

2. Adequate and Equally Efficacious Alternate Remedy:
The court noted that under Sections 343 and 347 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, there existed an adequate and equally efficacious alternate remedy. Section 343(1) empowers the Commissioner to order the demolition of unauthorized constructions, provided a reasonable opportunity to show cause is given. The Act also provides for an appeal mechanism under Section 343(2) to the Appellate Tribunal and further to the Administrator under Section 347D. The court emphasized that these provisions offer a complete remedy for the grievances of the plaintiffs.

3. Bar of Jurisdiction under Section 347-E of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act:
Section 347-E explicitly bars the jurisdiction of courts to entertain any suit, application, or proceeding in respect of any order or notice appealable under Sections 343 or 347B. The court highlighted that the plaintiffs did not challenge the demolition order dated 3.8.1987 in their plaint, nor did they amend the plaint to include this challenge after the written statement was filed. The court relied on the Supreme Court's principles in Shiv Kumar Chadha Vs. MCD, which state that courts should not ordinarily entertain suits related to demolition proceedings initiated under Section 343(1) unless there is a prima facie jurisdictional error.

4. Availability of Alternative Remedy and Bar under Section 41(H) of the Specific Relief Act:
The court also considered Section 41(H) of the Specific Relief Act, which bars the grant of an injunction when an equally efficacious relief is obtainable through other usual modes or proceedings. Since the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy through the appeal provisions under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the court found that the suit for an injunction was also barred under Section 41(H) of the Specific Relief Act.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the suit was barred under Section 347-E of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and Section 41(H) of the Specific Relief Act. Consequently, the plaint was rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court advised the plaintiffs to pursue their remedy before the Appellate Tribunal as per the provisions of the Act and ordered them to pay the costs of the defendant.