$~103 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16004/2022 SHARVAN KUMAR SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prabhat R., Adv. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy, Standing Counsel with Mr. Barun Dey and Mr. Naveen Kumar Saraswat, Advs. for R-1/DDA Mr. Lokesh Kumar, Adv. for R- 2/M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA O R D E R % 13.08.2024 CM APPL. 46281/2024 (For restoration) 1. This application has been moved on behalf of the petitioner for restoration of the present writ petition, which was dismissed for non- appearance of the petitioner on 18.07.2024. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/DDA as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2/M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd., are present on advance notice. They submit that they have no objection if the present application moved by the petitioner is considered in accordance with law. 3. For the reasons stated in the application and finding sufficient cause, the application under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC is allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original number and stage. 4. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 16004/2022 5. However, considering the issues which are espoused by the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 07:41:08 petitioner, and in the meantime, in order to inquire whether or not the process of law is being abused in terms of the order passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case titled Sudeep Kumar v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi1, which was followed by a subsequent case titled Pratap Singh Parmar v. DDA2 passed by this Court as also in view of the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ms. Preeti v. MCD3, the petitioner is directed to file an affidavit within four weeks from today in respect of the following aspects: (i) details of his occupation and education; (ii) source of his income & earnings with copies of bank accounts maintained by him for the last one year; (iii) information be furnished regarding the number of petitions that have been filed by the petitioner in the past in any Court of Law in the nature of Public Interest Litigations [“PIL”] or otherwise, and furnish information as to in how many matters he has withdrawn prosecution or has settled the matters with the opponent parties, which as per him, raised or intended to raise/carry out unauthorised construction and/or encroachment on any public land; (iv) the distance between the house of the petitioner and the house in which unauthorized construction is alleged; (v) to disclose whether there is any unauthorized construction in the house of the petitioner and whether the construction of house of the petitioner is as per the sanctioned plan; and (iv) whether the petitioner has any dispute with the respondent party who is alleged to be raising or interested in raising alleged unauthorized construction. 6. Non- filing of the affidavit in all necessary details shall invite adverse inference to be taken against the petitioner. Re-notify on 12.12.2024. DHARMESH SHARMA, J. AUGUST 13, 2024 sp 1 W.P. (C) 10794/2015 dated 23.11.2015 2 W.P. (C) 1141/2021 dated 19.12.2023 3 W.P.(C) 8771/2024 dated 01.07.2024 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 07:41:08