Prem v. Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi .

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion arises from CM APPLN. 308/2021 (Clarification). The hearing was conducted through video conferencing. The petitioner sought clarification of an earlier order dated 19.11.2020 which had permitted the petitioner to repair her tenement and had directed the Corporation to ensure that restoration/repair was done only to the extent the property existed earlier. The petitioner reported that when attempting repairs she was prevented by the SHO of Police Station Rajouri Garden. The SHO's counsel denied any prevention and assured the court that the SHO would not prevent the petitioner from carrying out repairs in terms of the order dated 19.11.2020. The court disposed of the application with directions to the Corporation to depute an officer to inspect and ensure compliance with the earlier permission. The opinion also records an administrative correction relating to W.P. (C) 9121/2020 concerning the presence of Mr. Narender Kumar Srivastava on 06.01.2021 and directs uploading a corrigendum and sending copies by email.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether clarification of the order dated 19.11.2020—permitting repair of the tenement and directing the Corporation to limit restoration to the earlier extent—was required in light of the petitioner's allegation that the SHO prevented repairs.
2. Whether any further directions were necessary to ensure implementation of the order dated 19.11.2020.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• The petitioner, through learned counsel, submitted that when attempting to repair the tenement she was prevented from doing so by the SHO of Police Station Rajouri Garden.

Respondent / SHO's Arguments

• Learned counsel for the SHO, under instructions, stated that the SHO had not prevented the petitioner from carrying out any repair and gave an assurance that the SHO shall not prevent the petitioner from carrying out repairs in terms of the order dated 19.11.2020.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court noted the parties' competing statements: the petitioner's assertion of prevention by the SHO and the SHO's counsel's denial and assurance. On that basis the court held that no further clarification of the earlier order was necessary. To ensure compliance with the permission granted on 19.11.2020, the court directed the respondent-Corporation to depute an officer to inspect the property and ensure that construction is purely in accordance with that permission. The court also recorded and corrected the administrative omission regarding the presence of Mr. Narender Kumar Srivastava on 06.01.2021 and directed that a corrigendum be uploaded and the order be circulated by email.

Holding and Implications

Application disposed of.

Direct effects of the decision:

• The court found no need for further clarification of the order dated 19.11.2020.
• The respondent-Corporation is directed to depute an officer to inspect the property and ensure that restoration/repair conforms strictly to the permission granted on 19.11.2020.
• The court recorded that the SHO's counsel assured non-interference; no separate coercive order against the SHO is specified beyond this record.
• For W.P. (C) 9121/2020, the presence of Mr. Narender Kumar Srivastava on 06.01.2021 shall be read into the order dated 06.01.2021, and a corrigendum shall be uploaded. The order is to be uploaded on the High Court website and emailed to learned counsels.

No broader precedent or novel legal principle was announced in this opinion; the decision addresses implementation and administrative correction only.