JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. Rule.
Learned counsel for the respondents accept notice of rule.
2. The short controversy, which arises for consideration in the present case, is as a consequence of the proposed action of respondents No. 3 to 6 to construct a all on the rear side of NDMC, Yusuf Zai Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The petitioner association represents various occupants of the shops, who have been allotted shops on license basis by respondent No. 1 NDMC. The dispute in the present case does not relate to violation of the terms and conditions of license for which is was always open to respondent No. 1 NDMC to take action in accordance with law.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner association is that there are air-conditioning ducts and window on the back side of the shops in question from a considerable period of time and construction of a wall next to the rear wall would result in blockage of the same.
4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 6, on the other hand, submits that there is encroachments by members of the petitioner association and they have no right to open doors and windows on the rear side. The respondent No. 1, however, states that there is no encroachment on the ground, but air-conditioning ducts have been constructed and air-conditioners installed, which are in existence on the rear side of the market.
5. The aforesaid facts show that, really speaking, it is the respondent No. 1 NDMC, which is concerned with the matter in issue since it is the said respondent which has issued the license(s) in favor of the petitioners. Admittedly, there is no encroachment on the ground level. It is also noted that there is no right as such apparently created in favor of the members of the petitioner association to open doors on the rear side or install ducting. However, a reading of the resolution No. 50 dated 11.03.1977 of respondent No. 1 Council shows that there is no objection to the window with a grill in the back for ventilation purpose.
6. Be that as it may, even if the window has to exist, there has to be some space between the rear wall and the wall to be constructed by respondents No. 3 to 6 so that ventilation is possible. If the space is left, there is no question of any obstruction on account of the air-conditioners or ducting since the space would take care of that.
7. In the Order dated 25.07.2001, this aspect was discussed and it was proposed that a set back of one and a half feet at the rear side the provided, which would suffice for purposes of passage, air-conditioning ducts and coolers as also the ventilation through windows. Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 6 says that the said proposal is not acceptable to the said authorities.
8. In my considered view, the proposal as contained in the Order dated 25.02.2001 is the proper and feasible solution the problem. It has also to be kept in mind that the land owning agency is actually respondent No. 1 NDMC and not respondents No. 3 to 6. It cannot be said that, on the one hand, the window is permitted for the purpose of ventilation and, on the other hand, the very purpose of opening the window is defeated by constructing a wall to the rear side.
9. I am, thus, of the considered view that it is open to respondents No. 3 to 6 to construct the wall after appropriate sanction provided a set back of one and a half feet is provided from the rear wall of the shops in question.
10. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.