* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11658/2009 & CMs No.11557-08/2009
Date of decision : 15.9.2009
IN THE MATTER OF
# SHREE DHARMIK RAMLILA COMMITTEE ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. O.P. Aggarwal, Adv. with
Mr. Puran Chugh, Chairman of the
petitioner Committee.
!
versus
$ MCD & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv.
CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. HIMA KOHLI, J. ( ORAL )
1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondent No.1 to grant it permission to perform Ramlila in the park situated in Block-C, earlier known as "Hanuman Vatika", now renamed by the MCD as "Shree Dharmik W.P.(C) 11658/2009 Page 1 of 7 Ramlila Maidan", Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. It is further prayed that that the letter dated 26.8.2009, issued by the respondent No. 1 (annexed as Annexure-I to the writ petition) be declared as illegal.
2. Vide letter dated 26.8.2009, the Deputy Director (Horticulture), MCD has informed the General Secretary of the petitioner that as per the order dated 29.9.2008, passed in WP(C)No.6355/2008, the petitioner is not permitted to perform Ramlila in the said park.
3. At the outset, counsel for the respondent No. 1, who appears on advance copy, states that the present petition is a gross abuse of the process of the Court. He hands over a copy of the order dated 29.9.2008 passed in WP(C)No.6355/2008 entitled "Hanuman Vatika Park Nigrani Committee vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi". A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that in the year 2008, the petitioner therein approached the Court for seeking directions against the MCD for allowing Ramlila to be held in the same park, which is subject matter of the present writ petition. However, during the pendency of the said petition, the MCD granted permission to the petitioner Committee herein to hold Ramlila in the park. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with certain directions to ensure W.P.(C) 11658/2009 Page 2 of 7 that the park was not damaged and the residents of the area were not inconvenienced. Prior to passing the directions, counsel for the Dharmik Ramlila Committee, the petitioner herein, on instructions from Mr. Puran Chugh, Chairman of the Committee, who was present in the Court submitted that he was authorized to make a statement on behalf of his clients that not only would the Committee abide by all the conditions, as imposed in the order of the court, but also those imposed by the MCD, including the conditions of the fire department, for conducting Ramlila in the year 2008. The Committee further undertook not to seek permission in future, for holding Ramlila in the park in question. The relevant para of the aforesaid order dated 29.9.2008 is reproduced hereinbelow :
"Counsel for the Dharmik Ramlila Committee further gives an undertaking, on instructions from Mr. Pooran Chugh, who is the Chairman of the Dharmik Ramlila Committee and is present today in the court today and submits that he is authorized by the Dharmik Ramlila Committee to make a statement in the court and to bind them, that not only will the Dharmik Ramlila Committee abide by all the conditions, as per order of the court and as imposed by the MCD including the conditions of the fire department, but also undertakes not to seek permission for holding the Ramlila in future with respect to this park, between C- 6 and C-12, Yamuna Vihar, known as Hanuman Vatika Park. MCD is also directed not to grant permission in future for holding any functions social or religious, except as per the guidelines of the MCD, in the park in W.P.(C) 11658/2009 Page 3 of 7 question.
The present writ petition is thus disposed of with the following directions :-
(a) Hanuman Vatika, situated between C-6 and C-
12, Yamuna Vihar, known as Hanuman Vatika Park, Delhi shall be used for holding Ramlila, as a special case, between 29th September to 10th October, 2008;
(b) Besides 108 conditions imposed by the MCD, the statement made by the counsel for the Dharmik Ramlila Committee as well as Mr. Pooran Chugh, Chairman of the Dharmik Ramlila Committee in court today is taken on record. They shall ensure that trees etc. are not damaged, garbage is removed on daily basis.
(c) No effigies will be burnt in the park;
(d) No food stalls will be set up;
(e) No swings/jhools will be installed;
(f) Loudspeakers will not be used beyond the specific time;
(g) The organizers will ensure that there is minimum inconvenience caused to the residents of the area;
(h) As per the statement of Mr. Puran Chugh, Chairman of the Dharmik Ramlila Committee, the Dharmik Ramlila Committee, its successors and assigns shall in future not request for holding Ramlila in the park in question.
(i) MCD will also follow its guidelines.
In view of the above directions, which have been W.P.(C) 11658/2009 Page 4 of 7 passed today, nothing further survives in the writ petition. The same is disposed of accordingly."
4. It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid order has not been placed on the record by the petitioner. Nor is there any mention of the said order in the writ petition. The deponent of the affidavit, filed in support of the present writ petition, is the same gentleman, namely, Shri Puran Chugh, who has described himself as the Chairman of the petitioner Committee. When confronted with the order dated 29.09.2008, passed in WP(C) 6355/2008, counsel for the petitioner expressed complete lack of knowledge and stated that he needed time to obtain instructions from his client. As Mr. Puran Chugh was present in Court, matter was passed over to enable the counsel to obtain instructions. Thereafter, the matter has been taken up in the post lunch session. Counsel for the petitioner still insists that his client is entitled to grant of permission to hold Ramlila in the park. He however has no explanation to offer about the failure on the part of the petitioner to mention the order dated 29.09.2008 or the reason therefor. As Mr. Puran Chugh is present in Court, he is called upon to explain the reason for withholding material information from the Court while filing the present petition. No explanation is forthcoming. W.P.(C) 11658/2009 Page 5 of 7 Instead, Mr. Chugh remains in the denial mode and feigns ignorance of not only of the order passed in WP(C) 6355/2008, but also the statement made on his behalf by his counsel. He insists that his counsel never informed him about the undertaking given to the Court.
5. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner is reprehensible and amounts to misleading the Court. Material information has been sought to be concealed by the petitioner while filing the present writ petition. There is not a whisper in the petition with regard to the aforesaid undertaking given by Mr. Puran Chugh in the earlier proceedings. The conduct of the petitioner borders on the pernicious and deserves to be condemned. Even in the course of dictating the present order, Mr. Chugh time and again insists that he is unaware of the order passed on 29.9.2008.
6. Considering the fact that in the above proceedings, an undertaking was given by Mr. Puran Chugh to the Court that neither the Committee, nor its successors or assigns would seek any permission for holding Ramlila in the park, subject matter of the present writ petition, the present writ petition is not maintainable. In fact, in the teeth of the undertaking given by Mr.Chugh on behalf of the Committee in WP(C) No.6355/2008, the present writ petition can W.P.(C) 11658/2009 Page 6 of 7 be treated as nothing but an attempt to overreach the Court. There is not only suppression of relevant facts, but a deliberate misstatement made by the petitioner Committee, and particularly, Mr. Puran Chugh, Chairman of the petitioner and deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the present petition.
7. In these circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed while imposing costs of Rs.40,000/- on the petitioner Committee and Mr. Puran Chugh, the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition. The costs shall be borne jointly by the parties and paid to the respondent/MCD within a period of two weeks from today.
8. List this matter before the Joint Registrar for recovery of the aforesaid costs, on 20th October, 2009.
HIMA KOHLI,J SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 sk W.P.(C) 11658/2009 Page 7 of 7