Delhi High Court - Orders
Chandra Shekhar & Anr vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors on 13 September, 2024
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8482/2023
CHANDRA SHEKHAR & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajiv Kr. Ghawana and Mr.
Ashish Kumar, Advs.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Nipun Katyal, Adv. for R-2 & 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 13.09.2024 CM APPL 53928/2024 (for withdrawal of the petition)
1. The present application has been filed under Section 151 CPC seeking withdrawal of the instant petition.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
3. The instant application is strongly opposed by learned counsel for the respondent, who draws the attention of the Court to an earlier order dated 04.12.2023, wherein, the respondent pointed out that the petitioner is accused of guilty of concealment of the material facts that he had already sold the subject property in question. Pursuant to the liberty granted to respondent, he has also filed an affidavit, alongwith the corresponding sale deeds attached, with respect to the same, which reads as under:-
2. It is stated that the petitioners have not come to this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and deliberately and intentionally concealed material facts 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 19/09/2024 at 07:50:32 from this Hon'ble Court and even the interim order dated 14.06.2023 has been obtained by misrepresentation and since the petitioners are guilty of concealment and misrepresentation and having committed fraud upon this Hon'ble Court, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. It is stated that the petitioners have concealed the fact that, prior to the filing of the present petition, they had already sold all the five floors comprising of Ground, First, Second, Third and Fourth to third parties way back in 2014 & 2016, by way of separate registered sale deeds.
4. It is stated that as on date, the petitioner no. 2 is alleged owner in the respect of the first floor as the same was repurchased by petitioner no. 2 vide registered sale dated 19.08.2016.
5. It is stated that apart from the above, the ground floor has been sold vide registered sale deed dated 25.08.2014 to one Mr. Manoj Mendiratta. Copy of the sale deed dated 25.08.2014 is the annexed as ANNEXURE A-1.
6. The First Floor was initially sold by the petitioner no.1 to one Mrs. Veerwati Yadav by way of registered sale deed dated 07.02.2014 and the same was repurchased by his wife by way of registered sale deed dated 19.08.2016. Copy of the registered sale deed dated 07.02.2014 is annexed as ANNEXURE A-2. Copy of the registered sale deed dated 19.08.2016 is annexed as ANNEXURE A-3.
7. The Second Floor and Third Floor were also sold to Mr. Manoj Mendiratta by way of sale deed dated 31.07.2014 and 30.07.2014 respectively. Copy of the sale deed dated 31.07.2014 is annexed as ANNEXURE A-4, Copy of the sale deed dated 30.07.2014 is annexed as ANNEXURE A-5.
8. The Fourth Floor, which even otherwise is not permissible as per the building bylaws, was sold to one Gautam Dawar by way of registered sale deed dated 08.04.2016. Copy of the sale deed dated 08.04.2016 is annexed as ANNEXURE A-6.
9. It is stated that none of the aforesaid facts have been disclosed by the petitioners in the present Writ Petition and since the property has already been transferred to third parties expect the first floor, which is owned by the petitioner no. 2, the petitioners have no right title and interest in the other parts of the property in respect thereto interim order has been obtained.
10. It is further stated that vide order dated 14.06.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court, the ground floor was allowed to be de-sealed for 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 19/09/2024 at 07:50:32 residence of Sanjay Kumar, brother of petitioner no. 1.
11. It is stated that since Mr. Sanjay Kumar or the petitioners are not the owners of the ground floor therefore, they could not have asked for the aforesaid order and even otherwise the aforesaid floor has subsequently been sold to one Rakesh Kumar S/o Chaudhary Dhani Ram, who is in the possession of the aforesaid floor and the aforesaid is not in occupation or possession of Mr. Sanjay Kumar as portrayed before this Hon'ble Court. The petitioners are further encroaching upon the government land around the subject property. Photographs of the property is annexed as ANNEXURE A-7.
12. Thus, the petitioners have hoodwinked this Hon'ble Court and have committed fraud upon this Hon'ble Court and therefore, the present Writ Petition is liable to be rejected/dismissed and appropriate action should be taken against the petitioners for concealment and misrepresentation of facts."
4. This Court expresses its displeasure and cautions the petitioner in filing such frivolous writ petitions which consume substantial resources and judicial time, which is a public resource and ultimately leads to docket explosion. This Court in Resident Welfare Assn. v. Kishan Devnani1, in unequivocal terms elucidated the cascading and detrimental effects of entertaining such petitions and held as under:-
32. An upshot of the above discussion clearly elucidates that the Constitutional Courts while exercising the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia have to scrupulously ascertain i) whether the petition has been filed with any oblique motive or vested interest, ii) whether disputed and complex questions of facts are involved that require a shred of evidence, iii) whether there exists an alternate and equally efficacious remedy to address the grievance, iv) whether any individual or legal right of the petitioner has been violated along with consequential breach of obligations on part of authorities concerned thereto, v) whether the nature of action and nature of activity under question falls in the domain of public law etc.. The aforesaid exigencies are only illustrative in nature and not exhaustive. Without such a meticulous exercise, if writ petitions are being readily entertained, then the Constitutional Courts would be committing a breach of trust against 1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5697.
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 19/09/2024 at 07:50:32 the genuine and bonafide litigants who have reposed faith in the constitutional machinery and have been longing since ages in the hope of justice. Undoubtedly, the scheme of Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not envisage such a practice and therefore, the Courts should be mindful while exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. This self- imposed fetter on the discretionary extraordinary power of the Constitutional Courts was kept keeping in mind the spirit of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
33. Any petition wherein the rights involved are not clearly exposited and are in fact, rooted in complexity of disputed facts, the Court is constrained to start a roving enquiry and that may not be an appropriate recourse while exercising the writ jurisdiction. Writ being discretionary and prerogative in nature, should not be exercised liberally without establishing the individual or legal rights and consequential breach of obligations on the part of the authorities concerned.
34. On this fulcrum, this Court also expresses its displeasure when petitions with vested interests are being filed under the writ jurisdiction. These cases lead to an undesirable docket explosion and often end up burdening the already saddled judiciary. Moreover, entertaining such writ petitions results in a domino effect and propels other litigants to file similar cases by frequently knocking on the doors of Constitutional Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequentially, these writ petitions, if being entertained, will consume not only judicial time but also resources, which can effectively be utilised in cases where parties have been awaiting the fate of their cases since ages. In a judicial system with mounting pendencies, it is necessary for the Courts to ensure that judicial time is used judiciously. Judicial time, in principle and in fact, is public's time and the principles discussed above are only meant to ensure that it goes to the deserving causes so that the constitutional promise of guaranteed protection of rights is fulfilled in a time-bound manner. This Court, in the W.P. (C) No. 9828/2015 titled as Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda, has considered the consequences of the liberal approach being adopted while entertaining the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relevant extract of the said decision reads as under:--
"The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary remedy, to be not invoked or allowed to be invoked ordinarily, as is found being done increasingly, leaving very little time for the High Court to deal under Article 226 with issues really deserving consideration there under. Supreme Court, as far back as in Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana 1950 SCC 221 : AIR 1950 SC 163 and Nain Sukh Das v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (1953) 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 19/09/2024 at 07:50:33 2 SCC 137 : AIR 1953 SC 384 held that prerogative writs are extraordinary remedies intended to be applied in exceptional cases in which the ordinary legal remedies are not adequate but in the last over half century the said principle appears to have been forgotten, with the writ remedy being considered as a cure for all ordinary ailments also and for which the ordinary legal remedies under the civil law are adequate. The same has resulted in the High Court being inundated with writ petitions, the disposal whereof axiomatically is found to be taking, in most cases, as much time as the disposal of an ordinary civil lis, and which has resulted in the High Court facing difficulty in providing immediate relief even in deserving cases in writ jurisdiction and/or being left with little time to ponder over the important constitutional issues coming before it in the writ jurisdiction. In my humble view, a time has thus come for the High Court to send out a clear message of the writ remedy being an extraordinary remedy not available as an alternative to the remedy already available under the civil and general laws."
6. The petitioner, therefore, is saddled with a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited to the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund, within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of this order. Subject to the payment of cost, the instant application stands allowed.
6. The private respondent in addition, shall also be at liberty to take appropriate action, in accordance with law.
7. The instant application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8482/2023 In view of the order passed in CM APPL 53928/2024, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
The date already fixed, i.e. 02.12.2024 stands cancelled.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 13, 2024 p'ma 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 19/09/2024 at 07:50:34