Delhi High Court - Orders
Randheer And Ors vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors on 13 January, 2023
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11871/2022 & CM APPL. 35471/2022
RANDHEER AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Ms.
Renu and Ms. Shweta Priya,
Advocates. (M:9582388509)
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD
with Ms. Ayushi Bansal, Mr. Sanyam
Suri and Ms. Arshya Singh,
Advocates for R-1 to 4.
(M:9891363718)
Mr. Parvinder Chauhan and Mr.
Sushil Dixit, Advocates
(M:9958494956) for DUSIB with SI
Priya PS Daryaganj (M:9729131423)
Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Standing
Counsel for DDA with Ms. Kritika,
Panel Counsel and Ms Kanak Grover,
Advocate for R-7. (M:9811098090)
Mr. Subhash Tanwar, CGSC with Mr.
Sandeep Mishra and Mr. Ashish
Choudhary, Advocates for UOI.
(M:9991877774)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 13.01.2023
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the occupants of jhuggies at T- Huts, Moolchand Basti-1, Rajghat, New Delhi- 110002. They have filed this petition seeking rehabilitation and a stay on the demolition of their jhuggis W.P.(C) 11871/2022 Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.01.2023 12:44:49 till the pendency of the present writ petition.
3. Vide order dated 17th August, 2022, the court had recorded that the Petitioners had concealed material facts in this Petition. This included concealment of the relevant fact that the fathers of the eighteen Petitioners had instituted litigation in respect of the same property right up to the Supreme Court and lost. Thereafter, vide order dated 11th November, 2022, the court had directed to issue bailable warrants against all the petitioners and ordered all the Petitioners to appear before the Court on the next date of hearing. The relevant extract of the order dated 11th November, 2022 is extracted as under:
"1. On 17 August 2022, the Court had by a detailed order noted and come to conclude that the petitioners had clearly concealed material facts. It was in that backdrop that they were called upon to show cause why proceedings in criminal contempt be not drawn. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a reply has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by their counsels.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the aforesaid reply is supported by the affidavit of the petitioner. However, a copy of that affidavit which has been placed would show that it is not notarized at all. It is thus manifest that the petitioners have failed to comply with the directions issued on 17 August 2022. The Court is further constrained to note that the said reply far from expressing any regret continues to raise contentions pertaining to the merits of the claim even though the same had been duly noticed and rejected by the Court earlier.
3. Additionally, Ms. Kaur, learned counsel appearing for the Authority, has drawn the attention of the Court to the institution of contempt case being CONT.CAS(C) No. 730 / 2022 [Randheer and Ors. vs. Manish W.P.(C) 11871/2022 Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.01.2023 12:44:49 Kumar Gupta And Ors.] by the petitioners in July 2022. In the aforesaid contempt petition, the petitioners have, in essence, sought identical reliefs. Also an early hearing application appears to have been moved and pressed on 22 August 2022 and which was also granted. The Court notes that even before the Contempt Court the petition was taken up on 22 August 2022. The petitioners did not disclose the passing of the order dated 17 August 2022 in those proceedings either.
4. Consequently, bailable warrants shall be issued against all the petitioners who shall appear before the Court on 13.01.2023 and show cause why charges be not framed against them for having committed willful and deliberate criminal contempt of the Court."
4. All the Petitioners reside in the basti of the Yamuna flood plains in Delhi. Their respective fathers and grandfathers had filed writ petitions and other litigations challenging their eviction, which had attained finality till the Supreme Court. The Petitioners were evicted from these premises, which were under their occupation on earlier occasions. However, they still continue to reside in the same place.
5. It is also observed that vide order dated 17th August, 2022, this Court records that the earlier litigations have been completely concealed by the Petitioners and the Court accordingly issued the show cause notice as to why the criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. Despite the show cause notice being issued, in reply the Petitioners sought to justify their stand and instead of tendering an apology, they tried to argue their case on merits, which led to bailable warrants being issued by the Court. It is also noticed from the record as captured in paragraph 3 of the previous order dated 11th November, 2022 that the Contempt Case No. W.P.(C) 11871/2022 Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.01.2023 12:44:49 730/2022 titled 'Randheer and Ors. vs. Manish Kumar Gupta And Ors.' has also been filed on identical reliefs.
6. The SI from PS Darya Ganj, who is present states that all the Petitioners were served with the bailable warrants. The Court has interacted with some of the Petitioners, who state that the factum of their fathers having filed and lost in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, proceedings was informed by them to their Counsel. However, the documents for the said proceedings were not available with them, and hence, the same were not provided to the Counsel.
7. Upon a query from the Court as to whether the Petitioners disclosed the earlier litigations under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, Mr. Mishra points out to this Court paragraph 5 of the petition, which reads as under:
"5. The present petition is limited to the rights of the petitioners as slum dweller in their respective jhuggies and the petitioners in the present case are not claiming the right on the land as may be available to them in different statutes for the long duration for which they have been holding the land."
8. It appears from the above deliberation that the factum of public premises litigation having been unsuccessful, was in the knowledge of the Counsel, who drafted and filed the present petition.
9. It is also noticed that most of the Petitioners are either daily wagers or workers working in the informal sector.
10. Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, ld. Counsel for the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) points out paragraph 1A of the petition, which reads as under:
W.P.(C) 11871/2022 Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.01.2023 12:44:49"1A. That the petitioners have not filed any petition seeking similar relief as prayed in the present petition in this Hon'ble court or any other court."
11. Accordingly, since the Petitioners have appeared before the Court today, their presence is exempted for the next hearing. If and when the Court directs, they shall again be present before the Court. The consequences of non-disclosure shall, however, be considered on the next date of hearing. Considering the fact that the identical contempt petition, Contempt Case No. 730/2022 titled 'Randheer and Ors. vs. Manish Kumar Gupta And Ors.' has been filed for the same reliefs, it is deemed appropriate that the said contempt petition is also called with the present writ petition, subject to orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
12. By the next date of hearing, the DUSIB shall place on record a specific affidavit as to whether the Petitioners are entitled for rehabilitation or not. The said affidavit shall also specify the current policy of DUSIB for rehabilitation.
13. Considering the harsh winter, the jhuggis are not being permitted to be demolished for the time being.
14. The Sub-Inspector (SI) of the concerned area is present in Court today and confirms that the warrants have been executed. Considering the discussion above, for the time being the warrants issued on the last date against the Petitioners are kept in abeyance till further orders of this Court.
15. List on 15th March, 2023 along with Contempt Petition No.730/2022.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
JANUARY 13, 2023/dk/am W.P.(C) 11871/2022 Page 5 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.01.2023 12:44:49