Delhi High Court
Ram Kishan vs Commissioner Of Mcd & Ors. on 16 October, 2008
Author: Manmohan
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 467/2006 & CM No. 12066/2008
RESERVED ON : September 23rd , 2008
% DATE OF DECISION : October 16th, 2008
RAM KISHAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Jitender Kumar,
Advocate.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF MCD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Arora and
Mr. Kapil Dutta,
Advocates for MCD.
Mr. Amit Mehra,
Advocate for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J:
CMA NO. 12066/2008
With the consent of both the parties, present application is
allowed and appeal is restored to its original number.
Accordingly, application stands disposed of.
With the consent of parties the Appeal is taken up for
hearing and disposal.
LPA No. 467/2006
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against
the judgment and order dated 24th August, 2005 whereby
learned Single Judge had been pleased to dismiss the
Appellant's writ petition not only on the ground that the Appellant
had suppressed the Division Bench's order dated 27th
September, 1991 as a consequence of which the Appellant's
earlier Writ Petition bearing No. 1637/1991 had been dismissed,
but also on the ground that the Appellant's new writ petition
amounted to re-litigation/re-agitation of same question involved in
the initial writ petition.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that the
earlier Division Bench's order dismissing the WP(C) No.
1637/1991 could not be the basis for dismissal of the present writ
petition as the earlier petition was filed in a representative
capacity whereas the present petition had been filed solely in the
Appellant's individual capacity and was espousing his personal
cause.
3. Learned Counsel for Appellant further submitted that earlier
writ petition has been dismissed on the failure of the Appellant to
show that he had filed the petition in a representative capacity.
Learned Counsel re-emphasised that dismissal of the earlier writ
petition was on the ground of locus standi and / or lack of
representative capacity but not on merits of the Appellant's
personal case.
4. We are of the view that the Appellant's submissions are
misconceived on facts and untenable in law. The earlier writ
petition was not dismissed only on the ground of Appellant's
locus standi or Appellant's lack of representative capacity but
also on merits of the Appellant's case. This would be apparent
from the following findings of the earlier Division Bench's
judgment :-
"........In the cause title of the writ petition he does
not give his residential address but in Annexure-I the
address given is, House No. T-31 in the village. In
the ration card, copy of which has been filed by Ram
Kishan, the address given is House No. T-231. The
claim in the petition is that the land shown in red in
the plan filed by the petitioner is in occupation of the
petitioner and the petitioner should not be evicted
without due process of law. In the plan which has
been filed, neither House No. T-31 nor House No. T-
231 is shown. The petitioner has also not been able
to show us any document of title to any parcel of land
in the said village.........
......... This petition is nothing more than an
individual grievance of Ram Kishan who has not
made good the claim that he is occupying any part of
the disputed land. The petitioner not having filed any
document of title or proof of ownership or valid
allotment of land and in view of the fact that in the so-
called disputed land shown in red, neither House No.
T-31 nor House No.T-231 is shown, we find no merit
in this writ petition......"
5. In any event, we are of the view that learned Single Judge
was also justified in dismissing the Appellant's writ petition on the
ground that the Appellant had suppressed the earlier Division
Bench's order dated 27th September, 1991. The Appellant's
defence that the earlier order dated 27th September, 1991 was
not filed as the Appellant was not in possession of the same,
does not inspire confidence as the new writ petition was filed
after a gap of 13 years and in the new writ petition an interim
order of the earlier writ petition had been placed on record. It is
pertinent to mention that there is no ground in the present appeal
dealing with non filing of the earlier judgment and order dated
27th September, 1991.
6. It is settled law that writ courts exercise equitable
jurisdiction and grant discretionary relief only when it subserves
the ends of justice. Denial of relief by a writ court on the ground
of suppression of facts and documents by a petitioner is an
accepted proposition of law. In our opinion, in the present case
non filing of earlier Division Bench's judgment and order dated
27th September, 1991 disentitles the Appellant from seeking any
relief from a writ court.
7. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed with costs
of Rs. 2,500/- to be paid to Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee on the grounds of suppression and re-litigation.
MANMOHAN, J
MUKUL MUDGAL, J
OCTOBER 16th, 2008
rn
