M. S. A. Siddiqui ( 1 ) THE challenge in this bunch of writ petitions filed by different petitioners is to die validity of the notification dated 15. 1. 1976 issued by the Commissioner Municipal Corporation Delhi under Section 316 of the D. M. C. Act (hereinafter called the act ) declaring Katra Pyare Lal to be a public street. This common order shall govern the disposal of CWs. 261,262,263,264,265,266 and 267 of 1976 as they raise common questions of facts and law. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, Katra Pyare Lal, Chandni Chowk, Delhi is a private Katra belonging to family members of late Babu Pyare Lal. This Katra was constructed in 1935 and it consists of about 50 shops on ground floor and offices in balakhan as and an open compound in the centre. The land underneath the building aswell as the open compound was the property of Babu Pyare Lal. In 1944, a portion of the compound was built upon and nine shops were constructed after obtaining the sanction of the Delhi Municipal Committee. All the streets within the Katra were private streets of the owners and neither the Delhi Municipal Committee nor Delhi Municipal Corporation ever performed any function with respect to these streets and open spaces as contemplated undersection 299 of the Act. By adeclaration No. ZAC/cz/pa/76-80, dated 15. 1. 1976 issued by the Commissioner, Delhi Municipal Corporation undersection 316 of the Act, 46 streets/katras including the Katra Pyare Lal were illegally declared as public streets. Thereafter, on 18. 2. 1976, the respondent served the petitioners with a notice calling upon them to remove encroachments on the Municipal lands after declaration of the Katra Pyare Lal as a public street (Annexure 5 ). The shops in occupation of the petitioners are a part of the property constructed on private land in accordance with the plans sanctioned by the Municipal Committee in 1944 and the respondent had no jisdiction to order for removal of these shops under Section 308 of the Act. ( 3 ) AT the very outset, I must make it clear that the respondent has not filed any counter to the writ petition. It is well settled that if no counter is filed to the averments made in the writ petition on an affidavit, the contentions made therein are to be deemed as correct. ( 3 ) AT the very outset, I must make it clear that the respondent has not filed any counter to the writ petition. It is well settled that if no counter is filed to the averments made in the writ petition on an affidavit, the contentions made therein are to be deemed as correct. ( 4 ) THE simple question, though important, is whether the notification issued under Section 316 of the Act (Annexure-4) declaring Katra Pyare Lal to be a public street is a valid notification. Inevitably, the issue here has to run around the language of the Statute, and, therefore, the provisions of Sections 315 and 316 of the Act may be read at the very outset. Section 315 runs as follows: 335. Power of Commissioner to order work to be carried out or to carry it out himself in Default. (1) If any private street or part thereof is not levelled, paved, metalled, flagged, channelled, sewered, drained conserved or lighted to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, he may be notice require the owners of such street or part and the owners of the lands and buildings fronting or abutting on such street or part to carry out any work which in his opinion may be necessary, and within such time as may be specified in such notice. (2) If such work is not carried out within the time specified in the notice, the Commissioner may, if he thinks fit, execute it and the expenses incurred shall be paid by the owners referred to in Sub-section (1) in such proportion as may be determined by the Commissioner and shall be recoverable from them as an arrear of tax under this Act. 336. Right of Owners to Require Streets to be Declared Public : If any street has been levelled, paved, metalled, flagged, chanelled sewered, drained, conserved and lighted under the provisions of Section 315, the Commissioner may, and on the requisition of a majority of the owners referred to in Sub-section (1) of that section shall, declare such a street to be a public street and thereupon the street shall vest in the Corporation. " ( 5 ) THE scheme of the Act is like this. " ( 5 ) THE scheme of the Act is like this. Section 315 authorises the Commissioner to require owner of any street or part thereof to level, metal, flag, channel, sewer, drain, conserve or light it to his satisfaction and to carry out any work which in his opinion may be necessary, and within such time as may be specified in the notice issued under it, and if the owner fails to do so, the Commissioner may execute the said work and recover expenses from the owner as arrears of tax under the Act. Section 317 deals with the rights of owners of a private street to require it to be declared as a public street and authorises the Commissioner to so declare a street if he is satisfied that the same has been levelled, paved, metalled, flagged etc and lighted under the provisions of Section 315. These two sections are placed in juxtaposition and they appear to be complementary to each other. Section 315 visualises the contingency when a Municipal Commissioner may order work to be cafrried out in respect of a private street or to carry it out himself in default. But Section 316 deals with a particular situation, namely, when the Commissioner is approached by a majority of owners of a private street to declare it a public street and if he is satisfied that the said street has been levelled, paved, metalled, flagged and lighted under the provisions of Section 315, and, in that event a duty is cast on the Commissioner to declare such private street to be a public street. The object of 316 is self-evident. Section 316 means what it says and the powers under section 3/6 can only be exercised in the contingency contemplated by that Section. In other words, power under Section 316 can only be exercised if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely; (a) if any street has been levelled, paved, metalled, flagged, dianelled, sewered, drained, conserved and lighted under the provisions of Section 315; (b) if a requisition of a majority of the owners referred to in Sub-section (I ) of Section 315 is received by the Commissioner to declare such street as a public street. Thcommissioner must comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 316. A violation of the said requirements is likely to affect valuable rights of an owner of a private street. Thcommissioner must comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 316. A violation of the said requirements is likely to affect valuable rights of an owner of a private street. There is something in the very nature of the duty imposed by Section 316, something in die very object for which the duty is cast, that duty must be performed. "some Rules", as observed in Thakur Pratap Singh v. Sri Krishna AIR 1956 SC 140 , are vital and go to the root of the matter; they can t be broken". The words of the statute here must therefore be followed punctitiously. The scheme of the Act and the purpose of the particular provision in Section 316 underline the need to give to the provision its plain natural meaning. Therefore, the requirements laid down by Section 316 would govern any and every notification issued under Section 316 ( 6 ) IT is significant that the petitioners have stated in their petitions that Katra Pyare Lal is a private Katra belonging to family members of late Babu Pyare Lal and all the streets within the said Katra are private streets of the owners and neither the Delhi Municipal Committee nor Delhi Municipal Corporation ever performed any function with respect to these streets and open spaces as contemplated under Section 299 of the Act. Petitioners further pleaded that there was no requisition by majority of owners to the Commissioner for declaring any private street of the said Katra to be apublic street and as such the impugned notification is null and void. Strangely enough, these averments have not been controverted by the respondent. There is nothing on the record to show that the Commissioner has issued the impugned notification in accordance with the requirements of Section 316. As demonstrated earlier the requisition by majority of owners is the basis of the jurisdiction to declare aprivate street to be a public street. Provisions of Section 316 have to be strictly construed and requirements which are precedent to the declaration of a private street to be a public street have to be complied with before such declaration can be legally notified. In every case the words have to be construed in the context taking into consideration the language used and the (object to be achieved. In every case the words have to be construed in the context taking into consideration the language used and the (object to be achieved. The power of the Commissioner under Section 316 of the Act to declare a private street to be a public street does not depend on his sweet will. The power to make such declaration is derived from the requisition of majority of owners of a private street. Thus, there is implied prohibition against the unilateral act of the Commissioner in declaring the private street asapublic street without the express consent of majority of its owners. Under these circumstances, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the impugned notification (Annexure-4) declaring Katra Pyare Lal street to be a public street is null and void. ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the impugned Notification No. ZAC/cz/pa/ 76/80, dated 15. 1. 1976 (Annexure-4) is quashed to the extent it declares Katra Pyare Lal street as a public street. A writ will issue accordingly. No costs.