![JMA – Ninja & Deep Jandu [Official MV] Kaptaan](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-dsfIh319s0/maxresdefault.jpg "JMA – Ninja & Deep Jandu [Official MV] Kaptaan")
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan Wednesday withdrew his public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the Batla House demolition drive after a vacation bench of the Delhi High Court indicated that the PIL shall not be maintainable as any court order on it may have a bearing on the rights of the affected individuals.
Khan made a statement before the division bench of Justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia that he seeks to withdraw the PIL, so that he, being “a public-spirited individual”, can “inform the local residents of Batla House their right to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum within 3 working days.”
In effect, this would leave the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), which has been issuing demolition notices to properties on Khasra number 279, to take coercive action if it wishes to.
The order came after Khan expressed that he wanted to withdraw the petition. The submission came after the court dictated a reasoned order, holding the PIL to be not maintainable. Earlier, individuals affected by the demolition action and DDA notices approached the Delhi High Court and were granted protection by a single-judge bench. Khan had contended that while some have moved court, many others may not be aware of their legal rights to challenge the demolition action, or may be unable to move court. Khan had further contended that as a representative of the area, his PIL would then cover all such residents.
The bench however indicated that passing a general order of protection through a PIL in such a case would also, “in all likelihood, jeopardise cases of the individual litigant,” as any finding of the court on the validity of the notices would have a bearing on a challenge which the aggrieved individual would intend to raise before the appropriate authority.
Justice Kathpalia orally remarked, “Our anxiety is, no injustice should be caused to anybody, but only thing we feel is, individuals have to come.”
Initially, senior advocate Salman Khurshid, representing Khan, had indicated that he will withdraw the PIL after the DDA informed the court that it will not demolish the properties in the area. As the court was about to pass an order of stay on the demolition for three days, so that aggrieved parties can initiate appropriate proceedings for relief, the DDA did not consent to its assurance being taken on the court’s record.
Story continues below this ad
The bench then heard the plea on merits, inquiring first on the maintainability of the petition. Following submissions by Khurshid, the court then indicated that a PIL on the issue shall not be maintainable. However, Khan’s counsel finally agreed to withdraw the plea.
