New Delhi Traders Association … vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 May, 2018

2. Mr. Bindra, counsel for the appellants argued that in terms of Bye-law
2.14 no notice or permission is necessary for any minor repairs or alterations
work in a building. Reference was made to the bye-law, which states that a
building permit may not be required for plastering or cladding and patch
repairs, except for the heritage buildings where HCC’s permission is
required. Counsel argued that that apart, there is no mandate for any
permission from HCC in respect of other works for which no building
permit is required. Counsel argued that the single judge therefore
misconstrued Bye-law 7.26 which contains provisions (by reference to
Annexure II) for conservation of heritage sites and heritage buildings and
stated that they must be read to exclude those works/ alterations for which
no permission was required in terms of Bye-law 2.14 of the UDBL. Counsel
also referred to Bye-law 6.4.1 of the Delhi Building Bye-laws 1983 (which
were applicable prior to the 2016 Bye-laws) and urged that even earlier, no
permission was necessary to undertake certain works such as re-roofing,
renewal of roof, flooring and re-flooring etc. (as specified under Bye-law
6.4.1 of the Delhi Building Bye-laws, 1983). Mr. Bindra argued that for
heritage buildings and sites, a specific provision was made which restricted
any development or re-development or engineering operation or addition/
alteration and repairs relating to Heritage buildings and sites. It was urged
that although Bye-law 23.3 of the Delhi Building Bye-laws, 1983 was

LPA 244/2018 Pag e 2 of 9
widely worded, yet the respondents always understood that for minor repairs
and renewal such as re-flooring, re-roofing and other repairs, no permission
was required.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply