* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 908/2012
Date of Decision:15th February, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
MUNNI DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abdul Sattar, Adv. with
petitioner in person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Dr. Kumar Jwala, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Anjum Javed Adv., Mr.D.
Rajeshwar Rao, Adv. for R-2 to 6,
8-10 & 18.
Mr. Kshitij Bhardwaj, Adv. with
Ms.Shobhaa Gupta, Adv. for
Respondent No.7/MCD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to respondents No.1 to 7 to take appropriate action of demolition/removal of encroachment and unauthorized construction carried out by respondents No.11 to 17 in Mukandpur Extension Village, now known as Himgiri Enclave, Delhi and to initiate appropriate action against erring officials who have permitted the aforesaid encroachment and illegal/unauthorized construction in the area. Lastly, the petitioner has sought directions to set up an independent and impartial enquiry by the CBI to look into this whole W.P.(C) No.908/2012 Page 1 of 5 purported scam.
2. A perusal of the writ petition reveals that in para-1, the petitioner has simply described herself "as a law abiding citizen of India and a permanent resident of Delhi".
3. A perusal of the memo of parties reveals that the petitioner is not a resident of Mundka Extension Village, where she claims that rampant unauthorized construction/encroachment is going on. When learned counsel for the petitioner was asked as to why the petitioner was particularly interested in the area in question, when it is situated at a distance of about 8-10 kms from the address at which she resides and as to whether there is any litigation pending between her and the respondents, the Court is reluctantly informed that the petitioner does have a pending litigation with respondents No. 11 and 12. Upon a query as to the nature of the litigation and whether the same finds mention in the writ petition, counsel for the petitioner states, on instructions, that the petitioner had purchased some land in the aforesaid area, i.e., Himgiri Enclave, Village Mukandpur Extension, Delhi from respondents No.11 and 12 and though possession thereof had been handed over to her, later on the said respondents had dispossessed her therefrom, which had compelled her to file a civil suit for possession against them. The aforesaid suit is stated to be pending adjudication before the District Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi and is W.P.(C) No.908/2012 Page 2 of 5 presently at the stage of recording of ex-parte evidence. However, no stay order has been granted in favour of the petitioner in the aforesaid proceedings.
4. No mention whatsoever has been made of the aforesaid pending litigation in the present petition, much less any document placed on record relating to the suit proceedings. On further prodding, counsel for the petitioner reveals that the petitioner had also lodged an FIR against respondents No.11 and 12 which was registered as FIR No.465/2008 at P.S. Burari and is pending investigation.
5. It is pertinent to note that yet again, there is not a whisper about the aforesaid facts in the present petition. The writ petition is absolutely silent as to the pending civil and criminal case between the petitioner and respondents No.11 and 12. Instead, the petitioner portrays herself to be a law abiding citizen of the country and claims to have filed the present petition as a responsible citizen praying inter alia for directions to the civic authorities to undertake demolition of the unauthorized/illegal construction allegedly being carried out at the instance of respondent No.11 to 17 in the entire area of Himgiri Encalve, Mukandpur Extension, Delhi and for initiation of a probe by the CBI.
6. On the face of it, the present petition is a gross abuse of the process of law. It is quite evident that under the garb of filing the W.P.(C) No.908/2012 Page 3 of 5 present petition, the petitioner is out to settle her personal scores with respondents No.11 to 17. She has approached the Court with unclean hands and has deliberately suppressed and concealed material information from the Court that she is already in litigation with respondents No.11 and 12 and the civil suit is at an advanced stage of recording of ex-parte evidence. Besides the above, she has also lodged an FIR against the private respondents. All the above can only be termed as an attempt to mislead the Court.
7. The Court is of the opinion that petitioners like the present one ought to be dealt with sternly so as to ensure that in future litigants like her abstain from abusing the process of Courts by loading its dockets with mala fide and motivated litigation. In the higher interest of maintaining the overall health of the institutional body, such like petitions ought to be culled out with the acuity and precision of a surgeon using a scalpel to carve out a festering wound. In the above circumstances, this Court declines to entertain the present petition, which is dismissed without going into the merits of the case, with exemplary costs of `50,000/- imposed on the petitioner. The costs shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Bar Council of Delhi Advocates' Welfare Fund within two weeks from today. Proof of deposit shall be placed on record within the same time. In case the petitioner fails to place on record the proof of deposit of costs, the W.P.(C) No.908/2012 Page 4 of 5 Registry shall place the matter before the Court.
8. Before parting with the present case, it is deemed expedient to take measures to stem the tide of frivolous and motivated litigation which is acquiring the proportions of a deluge. Directions are therefore issued to the Registry to ensure that henceforth, whenever a writ petition is filed by a party seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to the civic authorities/local police to take action of sealing/demolition/removal of unauthorized construction in a particular premises, the owner/occupier of the said premises be impleaded as a co-respondent, and if there is any pending litigation between the petitioner and the owner/occupier of such premises, details thereof be furnished by the petitioner in the writ petition.
(HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 15, 2012 JUDGE
'anb'/sk
W.P.(C) No.908/2012 Page 5 of 5