E-Paper
Demolition of encroachment: GMSH chemist’s petition dismissed
GMSH chemist’s counsel argued that his client had been told to restore the load-bearing wall by December 25, but there was no load-bearing wall in the shop and there was no document or record, which specified the area of the shop in question.
A local court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by a Government Multi Specialty Hospital (GMSH-16) chemist against the UT administration’s directions to remove “encroachment” from a public passageway.
The petitioner, Sunil Kumar, had approached the court seeking a stay on the UT administration’s December 22 order. On December 26, the vacation judge stayed the UT’s order to remove the alleged encroachment till January 2, when regular court was to resume. The judge directed both parties to submit their arguments before a trial court on whether the encroachment is liable to be removed or not.
On Wednesday, the court observed that “there was no illegality in the show-cause notice issued on December 22” and it had been issued in accordance with due process of law. The court observed that it found no ground to interfere with the show-cause notice.
The chemist’s counsel argued that his client had been told to restore the load-bearing wall by December 25, but there was no load-bearing wall in the shop and there was no document or record, which specified the area of the shop in question. He also told the court that the chemist had stocks worth ₹50 lakh in the shop, and if the defendant forcibly tried to take its possession from the plaintiff, the stocks would be affected as the medicines need refrigeration and electrical supply.
Meanwhile, the defence argued that the chemist was guilty of encroaching on the adjoining public passage, so that the size of the leased shop had doubled. The defence also said that the encroachments had caused structural damage to the building as the load-bearing wall had been removed. “By doing the said act, the plaintiff has endangered the life and safety of the public,” the defence told the court.
The court observed that this order should not be deemed to be a comment on the merits of the case. The case is still ongoing and has been listed for February 14 for reply and consideration.
The directorate of health services (DHS) had earlier clarified that December 22 order was only related to the encroached area of the adjacent public passage and the chemist can continue to keep the possession of the allotted premises till the end of the lease period.
