Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. The   appellant   has   also   moved   number   of   miscellaneous applications.     One   such   application   was   filed   in   the   Court   on   22.08.2017 against Estate Officer Mr. Rehman for initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against him.  Only allegation against Ld. Estate Officer is that he had negated the legislative intents of the rule making body of MCD, which vide   its   various   Resolutions   passed   from   time   to   time   and   more   recently Resolution  No. 494  dated 21.11.2005,  had  reiterated  its  intentions  to  give benefits   to   the   traders/occupants   of   its   various   commercial   properties   by providing   them   the   option   to   convert   their   license   to   long­term   leases. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C)3146/2015 has held that the only right which the petitioners could have claimed and claim was under the MCD resolutions   No.   494   and   495   dated   29th  November,   2005   but   which resolutions, according to the North DMC, were never operationalized and did not come into effect.  It is not the case of the petitioner that the benefit thereof was/has been given to any other person.  In the light of the position of law as discussed by me hereinabove, the said resolutions were in any case contrary to law and discriminatory and arbitrary and cannot be enforced.   Since these resolutions   bearing   Nos.   494   &   495   have   been   declared   contrary   to   law, discriminatory and arbitrary, the appellant could not have been granted any benefit on the basis of these resolutions.   Hence, Ld. Estate Officer had not committed   any   contempt   by   not   relying   upon   said   resolutions.     This application under Section 340 Cr.P.C is not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed. 

13. Another   application   was   filed   on   22.08.2017   under   Section   340 Cr.P.C.   for   initiating   proceedings   against   Sh.   Bijender   Singh,   the Superintendent Land & Estate Department MCD Civic Centre,   for alleged perjury   committed   by   him.       There   is   no   specific   allegation   against Sh.Bijender   Singh   in   the   entire   body   of   the   application   and   it   is   only mentioned   that   there   is   mismanagement   in   his   office   due   to   which   the applicant   had   suffered   a   lot   of   mental   trauma   and   agony   regarding deposit/return of certain bank drafts, so the Superintendent Land & Estate Department, MCD Civic Centre Sh. Bijender Sijngh should be penalised and perjury proceedings be initiated against them.  There is no specific allegation against Sh. Bijeder Singh except that his office had allegedly harassed the appellant and there was allegation of mis­management in the said office.  This is no basis for initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.  Application is accordingly dismissed. 

14. There is another application, which was   also filed on 22.08.2017 under   Section   340   Cr.P.C.   for   initiating   proceedings   against   Additional commissioner   Sh.   A.S.   Asthir   for   perjury   committed   by   him.     Allegation against   Sh.   A.S.   Asthir   are   mentioned   in   para   No.   13   of   this   application wherein it is stated that the complainant met Sh. A.S. Asthir many a times and showed   him   letter   issued   by   the   department   regarding   acceptance   of provisional allotment in anticipation of approval tender for Kiosk/Dhaba in Hall No.1, Municipal Market, Karol Bagh on dated 06.10.1997 and she had also written letter dated 18.05.2016 and had already deposited drafts, which were returned for revalidation and same were revalidated by the Bank and that shows mis­management in his office, due to which the complainant/appellant was harassed and she suffered a lot of mental trauma and agony.   In my opinion, if the appellant had suffered mental trauma and agony due to alleged mis­management on the part of office of Additional Commissioner, this is no ground to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and application is accordingly dismissed. 

15.  Two applications were filed on 14.03.2018 and 03.02.2018 under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against Smt. Anita Vaid, Assistant commissioner, Land & Estate and also for initiating proceedings under Sections 10/12 of Contempt of   Courts   Act   against   her.     In   the   application   filed   on   14.03.2018,   it   is mentioned that Smt. Anita Vaid had filed an application under Section 151 CPC   for   preponement   of   next   date   of   hearing   on   behalf   of   North   DMC wherein it was alleged that applicant was enjoying a stay order granted by Ld. Predecessor of this Court against the eviction order, so the proceedings be initiated against her.   In another application filed on 03.02.2018, it is stated that  proceedings  may be initiated against  Smt. Anita Ved  and officials  of NDMC for filing false and frivolous application along with the affidavit and misleading the Court, which resulted into putting allegation on the District Court, which had granted stay order and application was moved by officials of the NDMC just to blackmail and harass the appellant and application was not bonafide.   All the facts and circumstances mentioned in the application were   already   part   of   the   record   and   nothing   new   was   mentioned   in   the application under Section 151 CPC by the North DMC.  Moreover, the parties have a legal right to move a preponement application and it is for the court to consider the application on merits and if there is any valid ground, the matter would   be   pre­poned   otherwise,   said   application   would   be   dismissed. Applicant has failed to make out a case to proceed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and also under Sections 10 & 12 of Contempt of Courts Act against Smt. Anita   Vaid   and   the   M.C.D.   officials.     Hence,   applications   are   not maintainable and are hereby dismissed.