Dr. Janak Raj Jai vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 210 Del

JUDGMENT

Khan, J.

1. Petitioner has filed this petition in public interest for direction to respondent No. 1 to implement provisions of Section 8-B of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 by making appropriate rules and issuing requisite notification for appointment of Dowry Prohibition Officers and Advisory Boards. He also prays for closing down of all "Crimes Against Women Cells" in the National Capital.

2. Petitioner's case is that Parliament had enacted Dowry Prohibition Act to protect and eradicate the evil of dowry but had failed to enforce its Section 8-B which provided for appointment of Dowry Prohibition Officers woh were to be conferred powers of police officers. No Rules under Section 10 of the Act were also framed even 10 years after its enactment. As a result, no Dowry Prohibition Officers were appointed and on the contrary 'Crime Against Women Cells' were set up in the police department which were non-statutory bodies and had no legal authority to discharge the functions of Dowry Prohibition Officers and which were incompetent to exercise any power under the Dowry Prohibition Act and thus required to be wound up.

3. It is pointed out by R-1 that Supreme Court was also seized of the matter regarding enforcement and implementation of Dowry Prohibition Act inCWP No. 499/97 rendring this petition irrelevant. It is also claimed that NCT Government had appointed 9 Additional Dowry Prohibition Officers by designation vide notification dated 3.9.98 in addition to those appointed under first notification dated 14.12.87 that Rules were also in the process of being finalised shortly.

4. In his counter affidavit, R2 has explained the circumstnces in which 'Crime Against Women Cells' were established in nine police districts of Delhi in view of increasing number of death of married women within first few years of their marriage and the constant agitation by various women organisations demanding setting up of such Cells and endeavor was made to resolve the disputes by conciliation/counselling which invariably resulted in postponement of registration of cases in police stations. Services of professional family counsellors from the Social Welfare Department were also beign utilised indowry related cases and for return of stridhan property to victims.

5. Petitioner's first prayer, in our view, would not survive in the face of appointment of D.P.O.'s and the Rules under the Act being in pipeline. His second prayer for winding up the 'Crime Against Women Cells' also appears unjustified and far fetched. There is nothing to show that these Cells were exercising any extra-legal or constitutional power to warrant there reigning in. No foundationor basis has been laid to show how those were functioning without any authority of law. No mandamus could, therefore, be issued to close these down. On the contrary, if these were found resolving matrimonial disputes by conciliation and counselling, it should be welcomed. In any case, so lonog as there is nothing to show that these cells had exceeded the brief or were functioning in breach of any law or without any lawful authority, it was not possible for this court to stop them from rendering an otherwise useful service. That being so, we find no merit in this petition which is dismissed.