Delhi High Court
East End Apartments Cooperative vs D.D.A. & Anr. on 21 May, 2009
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.3326/06 & C.M. Nos.6496-6497/09
EAST END APARTMENTS COOPERATIVE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aseem Mehrotra,
Advocate.
Versus
D.D.A. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate for
DDA.
Mr. Dalip Kumar and Mr. K.S.
Kashyap, Advocates for
Respondent No. 2/Contemnor.
Mr. Vibhu Shankar, Advocate
for Respondent DMRC.
Mr. J.K. Sethi, Advocate for the
Intervenors.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 311/2008
ASHOK NAGAR WELFARE ASSOCIATION REGD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vikas Gautam and Mr. K. S.
Kashyap, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for
DDA.
Mr.Vibhu Shankar, Advocate for
DMRC.
AND
+ CM(M) 1558/2007
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate.
versus
ASHOK NAGAR WELFARE ASSOCIATION REGD.& ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Vikas Gautam, Advocate
for Respondent/Ashok Nagar
Welfare Association.
Mr.Vibhu Shankar, Advocate for
DMRC.
Mr.Varun Mehlawat, Adv.for R-3.
WP(C) No.3326/2006 Page 1 of 17
AND
+ RFA Nos. 200-01/2006 & CM No.4170/2009
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate.
versus
ASHOK NAGAR WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.)& ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Vikas Gautam, Advocate
for Respondent/Ashok Nagar
Welfare Association.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
1. Whether reporters of the local papers 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
JUDGMENT
% 21.05.2009
1. On 27th November, 2008, this Court directed the Registry to issue
notice to Mr. Mohan Singh to show-cause as to why he should not be
punished for contempt of Court for the following acts:-
"(a) procuring a decree in Suit No.222/1998 (Suit
No.1066/1990) by suppressing the fact that the writ
petition of the plaintiff Association was dismissed and
status quo was vacated, and
(b) repeatedly filing suits and proceedings in respect
of Khasra No.391/263, 392/264, 393/264 and
402/268 in spite of the fact that possession of the said
land was taken pursuant to the award No.39/82-83
and the land stood vested in the State Government
and the petitions filed by the plaintiff Association were
dismissed by the High Court and orders of the High
Court were confirmed by the Supreme Court."
2. These two writ petitions and CM(M) No. 1558/2007 are all
concerning land measuring approximately 13 bighas comprising in
Khasra No. 391/263 situated at Village Chilla Sardoa Bangar, Delhi.
Since the matters involved a common question of law and fact, they were
disposed of by a common judgment dated 27th November, 2008.
3. The land in question being Khasra No. 391/263 was acquired
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, pursuant to a notification
dated 17th November, 1980 and 29th September, 1981 respectively.
4. The acquisition proceedings culminated in separate awards passed
in 1982. The entire area stood acquired and the possession of the
acquired land was also taken over.
5. The Ashok Nagar Welfare Association (in short „Association‟)
through its President Sh. Mohan Singh filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.
1507/1984 challenging the notification and claimed that the land was
sold to its members between 1972-78 by one Jawahar Lal, who was the
owner of the land. The writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench
on 21st May, 1998. The Special Leave Petition against the said judgment
was also dismissed in limni on 6th July, 1998.
6. The Association filed a second Writ Petition (Civil) No.1158/1996
seeking a writ of mandamus for regularization of the colony in the same
khasra. The said writ petition was dismissed by learned single Judge.
LPA No.354/1999 filed against the said dismissal was dismissed as well.
Thereafter an SLP No.19499/2000 was filed, which was dismissed by the
Supreme Court of India. With this, the plea for regularization of the
unauthorized colony in the above khasra also came to be dismissed by
this Court and was confirmed by the Supreme Court of India.
7. The Association then initiated a third round of litigation and filed
Writ Petition (Civil) No.6268/1998 praying for quashing of the award
dated 30th September, 1982. The writ petition was dismissed by learned
single Judge. LPA No. 151/2001 filed against the said order of the
learned single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench. Thereafter an
SLP (C) No.4072/2002 was filed in the Supreme Court, which was
ultimately dismissed as withdrawn by the Supreme Court.
8. Thereafter the Association initiated the fourth round of litigation by
filing Writ Petition (Civil) No.265/2001 praying for an inquiry as to how
compensation was disbursed in respect of land in question. The writ
petition was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court holding that there
was no dispute that the possession of the land had been handed over to
the appropriate authority. An SLP was filed against the said order in the
Supreme Court of India. The same was dismissed as well.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that the Association filed a Suit
No.1066/1990, wherein they claimed to be the owner and in possession
of the land in question and had alleged that respondents had encroached
upon the land by dispossessing the members of the Association. The
defendants including the Delhi Development Authority (in short „DDA‟), in
the said matter, were proceeded ex parte. Ultimately, an ex parte decree
was passed on 6th January, 1999. According to the DDA, it was never
served with summons in the said suit. On 21st November, 2000, DDA
moved the trial court for setting aside the ex parte decree. The trial court
dismissed the application of the DDA on technical ground that the
application was not accompanied by condonation of delay application.
10. The Association had also filed another suit being Suit No.649/1990,
where again it had contended that it was the owner of the land and in
actual physical possession of the land. Relief was claimed with respect to
part of the land in question. DDA had raised objection that the suit was
not maintainable as physical possession of the land had been taken over
on 1st October, 1982 and no portion was owned/possessed by
Association. Also as per the stand of the DDA, the site was lying vacant
and a boundary wall had been constructed by DDA around it.
Accordingly, the suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge and an appeal was
filed by the Association being RCA No.3/2005 which was ultimately
dismissed as withdrawn. The Association had also filed execution
proceedings pursuant to the ex parte decree dated 6th January, 1999. It
was contended by the Association that its land had been encroached
upon by erecting boundary wall and police help was sought to take
possession of the land. In October, 2005, the Association through the
court bailiff broke the boundary wall of DDA and took possession of part
of the land. As per the DDA, the possession of the land which was taken
over by the Association also formed part of Suit No.649/1990 which was
dismissed and the appeal filed by Association had also been dismissed as
withdrawn wherein Association had stated that possession of the land
had already been taken over by DDA. Thereafter DDA filed the CM(Main)
No.1558/2007. WP(C) No.3326/2006 was filed by East End Apartments
Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. alleging that despite property in
question having been acquired as far back as in 1982 and an award
having been passed, suit had been decreed ex parte and in execution
proceedings, the Association had been put in possession of the land on
which it had no right, title or interest as the land vested in the State
Government and had been entrusted to the DDA. In the said writ
petition, the counsel for the Association categorically stated that it was
ready and willing to hand over the possession of whatsoever extent of land
that was in its possession and the Court may direct proper inquiry into
the matter. Mr. Mohan Singh was ready to make a solemn statement to
that effect. On 14th November, 2007, Mr. Mohan Singh back tracked from
his statement. He now stated that he needed to convene a meeting of the
members of the Association to seek their approval for making a statement
regarding surrendering possession of the land. Mr. Mohan Singh also
failed to furnish, despite his solemn assurance, details of 85 proceedings
instituted by him in various courts.
11. The land in question had been handed over to the Delhi Metro
Railway Corporation (in short „DMRC‟) to construct a metro station.
Pursuant to the orders of the Division Bench in WP(C) No.3326/2006, the
Association now filed yet another writ petition bearing No.311/2008
claiming itself to be the legal owner of the land. It sought a mandamus to
direct DDA and DMRC not to interfere with peaceful possession of the
Association. Mr. Mohan Singh produced a photocopy of the letter dated
21st November, 2007, allegedly written by DMRC. According to DMRC,
the said photocopy of the letter was a fabricated one and no such letter
was ever issued by the DMRC and an affidavit to that effect was filed by
DMRC on 27th February, 2008. In view of the affidavit filed by DMRC, Mr.
Mohan Singh was directed to file the affidavit along with the original letter
received by him from DMRC. The said letter was directed to be kept in a
sealed cover with the Registrar General of this Court.
12. In the judgment dated 27th November, 2008, this Court took note of
the submissions of the counsel for the DDA that Suit No.222/1998 filed
by the Association was an abuse of the process of the Court. The land in
question was acquired and possession was taken over in 1982. Writ
petition challenging acquisition was dismissed by the Division Bench of
this Court and the SLP filed against the same had also been dismissed by
the Supreme Court. Yet a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963, was filed on the ground of alleged dispossession. As per the DDA,
the land stood vested in the Government and under Section 6 (2) (b) of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963, the suit against the Government could not have
been filed.
13. This Court came to a conclusion after considering the stand of all
the parties and the documents placed on record that Mr. Mohan Singh
had been perpetrating a fraud on various courts by filing suits showing
himself as President of the Association registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860. However, it was pointed out by the DDA that
there was no such registered Association by the name of Ashok Nagar
Welfare Association. As per the DDA, the land in question had been
acquired and physical possession taken, as per the rules and procedure
way back in 1982. Due process of law was followed and the land stood
vested in the Government in 1982 itself. According to the DDA, Mr.
Mohan Singh along with members of the Association encroached upon
these lands which had been acquired by the Government and made
unauthorized constructions on the said lands and were thus,
unauthorized occupants of the Government land and had no right of any
kind whatsoever to remain on the said land. Mr. Mohan Singh and the
members of the Association were, as per the DDA, encroachers upon the
acquired land and had played a fraud on the Court. Further it was
argued that Suit No.222/1998 was clearly an abuse of the process of law
and a decree had been obtained by practicing a fraud. In the said suit, it
had been alleged that the Association had been in possession of the land
in dispute since 1980. The Association made a mention about the status
quo order passed in its favour in WP(C) No.1507/1984. However, it did
not disclose that the said writ petition had been dismissed by the High
Court on 21st May, 1998 and the order of status quo was vacated. The
trial court had proceeded on the basis that the order of status quo passed
in writ petition was still in force on the date of passing of the decree. The
factum of dismissal of writ petition and vacation of status quo order was
not disclosed even in written submissions filed on 19th December, 1998.
When the Association made a claim in the suit, it neither had any title nor
any valid possession of the land. Most vital facts were suppressed and
the claim was founded on non-existent facts. It was done intentionally
and deliberately with the intention to deceive the Court and the
Association clearly procured a decree by practicing a fraud on the Court.
A person whose case is based on falsehood had no right to approach the
Court. He can summarily be thrown out at any stage of litigation.
Further a party which withholds vital documents in order to gain
advantage in the suit would be clearly guilty of playing fraud on the
Court.
14. Accordingly, in this background, the Court was constrained to issue
notice of contempt to Mr. Mohan Singh for procuring a decree in Suit No.
222/1998 (Suit No. 1066/1999) by suppressing the fact that the writ
petition of the Association had been dismissed and status quo vacated
and also on the ground of repeatedly filing suits and proceedings in
respect of Khasra Nos. 391/263, 392/264, 393/264 and 402/268 despite
the fact that possession of the land had been taken over pursuant to an
award and the land stood vested in the State Government and the
petitions filed by the Association had been dismissed by the High Court
and the orders of the High Court were confirmed by the Supreme Court.
15. The Association filed its reply and relied on a letter dated 3rd
November, 1993, issued by Mr. D.P.S. Nagpal on behalf of the DDA. The
DDA filed its affidavit to say that the said letter was not part of the record
of the DDA. No file bearing the number as stated in the letter had been
found. Also there was no officer of the name of Mr. D.P.S. Nagpal working
with the DDA at the relevant time. The name of the officer, as per the
DDA, was actually "D.P.S. Nangal" who was working as Director (LM) at
the relevant time. The contemnor has sought to rely on the said letter
dated 3rd November, 1993 to urge that DDA itself had admitted in the
letter that only symbolic possession of the entire acquired land was taken
by the DDA on 30th September, 1982 from Land Acquisition Collector.
Further, it was contended on behalf of the Association and Mr. Mohan
Singh that it was admitted by DDA that the possession of the entire
acquired land was under occupation of the trespassers/encroachers.
Reliance was placed on the said letter to urge that it was specifically
stated by the DDA that the DDA would have no objection in any manner if
the contemnor gets vacant possession of the land from the trespassers
and it further reiterated that Government has taken a decision to
regularize all colonies in existence prior to 1977.
16. When the contemnor was asked to explain his stand on this issue,
he filed an affidavit to say that the original of this letter dated 3rd
November, 1993 was filed by the Association in WP(C) No.1507/1984 and
the DDA did not deny the letter in the said proceedings. He also stated
that the copy of the same letter was also filed by the Association in
CM(Main) No.1558/2007 and the Association had even relied on the said
letter. As per them, the DDA nowhere in its rejoinder filed in the said
CM(Main) 1558/2007 ever alleged that the said document had not been
executed by DDA or was not part of its record.
17. Thereafter an affidavit dated 20th May, 2009, was filed in Court by
Mr. Mohan Singh stating that he unconditionally tendered his apology to
this Court for abusing the process of law. It was also stated by Mr.
Mohan Singh that he will withdraw all the cases pending in any Court
including criminal cases filed by him on behalf of the Association as well
as in individual capacity. It was also stated that cases filed in the name
of Mahakaleshwar Welfare Association will also be withdrawn. He further
undertook that in future he would not file cases against DDA or DMRC
and would not be instrumental in filing cases against DDA, DMRC or
anyone else with regard to the land falling in Khasra Nos. 391/263,
392/264, 393/264 and 402/268 situated in revenue estate of New Ashok
Nagar in Village Chilla Saroda Bangar, Delhi. He further undertook that
the Association which he was representing and was authorized to
represent would also not file any case against DDA or DMRC. He also
withdrew his allegations made against the Court. Mr. Mohan Singh
tendered his apology for the fabricated letters filed by him which were
allegedly written by DDA and DMRC. As per him, the said letters were
filed inadvertently and they were fabricated.
18. From the narration of events, as stated hereinabove and the
findings contained in the judgment dated 27th November, 2008, we have
no doubt that Mr. Mohan Singh is prima facie guilty of contempt. He and
the Association which he represents have deliberately made incorrect
statements in their pleadings, affidavits, depositions with an intention to
mislead the Court and were clearly guilty of perjury and were liable to be
prosecuted for the same.
19. As held by the Supreme Court in Mahender Pratap vs. Krishan
Pal, (2003) 1 SCC 390 that normally appropriate action for prosecution
for perjury or initiation of contempt proceedings should be taken by the
court in such cases lest the judicial process would continue to be polluted
and misused by undeserving parties who have no real grievance or cause
for seeking aid of judicial forums. Such false cases not only contribute to
the work-load of the court and kill its precious time but create hurdles in
the way of genuine litigants who sincerely need assistance of the court for
obtaining justice.
20. In Dhananjay Sharma vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 3 SCC 757,
the Supreme Court observed that any conduct which has the tendency to
interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial
proceedings amounts to the commission of criminal contempt. The
swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings not only has the
tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings
but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the
administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in judicial
proceedings in any court of law exposes the intention of the party
concerned in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law
cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a
mockery of by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the
litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. Anyone, who makes an
attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled
stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence, commits
criminal contempt of court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in
accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits, evidence or making false
statements on oath in Courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law
and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake
public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of
an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the
fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing
of false affidavits or giving of false statements, and fabricating false
evidence in a court of law.
21. The contemnor was directed to appear before us in person.
Unqualified apology was tendered by him. It was also contended on his
behalf by his counsel that he was of frail health and was keeping
extremely unwell. It was also stated that he had been recently admitted
to the hospital and was undergoing medical treatment.
22. As stated above, though we have no doubt that the contemnor is
prima facie guilty of contempt of this Court for making false statements
on affidavits, filing false evidence, obtaining orders and decrees by playing
a fraud as also repeatedly filing suits and proceedings with respect to the
land which stood vested in the Government and despite knowing that
various writs and appeals against the said acquisition also stood
dismissed, yet given the fact that the contemnor is of frail health as also
the factum of his tendering in unqualified apology and admitting to his
illegal acts, we take a lenient view of the matter and discharge the
contempt notice issued against the contemnor. However, it is made
categorically clear that the contemnor and the Association which he
represents i.e. Ashok Nagar Welfare Association are bound by the
undertaking given in the affidavit filed in the Court. All suits filed by the
contemnor as well as the Association with regard to the land in question
whether against individuals or Government authorities stand dismissed
forthwith. The contemnor and the Association have also undertaken to
withdraw the said suits. Further the contemnor and the Association
undertook to withdraw the Suit No. 179/2004 for damages on account of
defamation filed by them against the DDA. Accordingly, the said suit is
dismissed and the decree passed in the said suit is set aside. In view of
the same, RFA Nos. 200-01/2006 filed by the DDA against the
judgment/decree in Suit No. 179/2004 has become infructuous and is
disposed of accordingly. The decretal amount deposited in this Court
shall stand released to the DDA. The Registry is directed to release the
said decretal amount lying deposited with it to the DDA. The contemnor
had also filed a criminal case being Criminal Case No. 1346/2006 against
large number of persons and officials of DDA and DMRC under provisions
of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. Further
proceedings in the same were stayed by this Court and the contemnor
has undertaken to withdraw the same as well. The said criminal
proceedings are accordingly quashed. Vide judgment dated 27th
November, 2008, the Registry was directed to ascertain the status of
proceedings mentioned in paragraph-19 of the said judgment and it was
ordered that all the proceedings which are pending as of date before the
courts subordinate to this Court shall stand withdrawn to this Court and
be placed before the Bench for passing further orders. The Registry has
drawn up a list of 26 cases, the details of which are as follows:-
S.No. Case No. Parties name Name of Court Next date of
hearing, if any.
1 Ex. No. 18/05 in Ashok Nagar Welfare CJ/KKD, Delhi Pending
Suit No. 222/98 Association v. Ravinder
Kumar and ors
2 Suit No. 164/03 Mahakaleshwar Welfare Sh. Vinod Pending
Association v. Urmila Devi Kumar, ADJ,
Delhi
3 Suit No. 163/05 Ashok Nagar Welfare ACJ/ARC(NE) Decided on
Association v. Union of India 28.02.08
S.No. Case No. Parties name Name of Court Next date of
hearing, if any.
4 Suit No. Ashok Nagar Welfare CJ, Delhi Decided on
1704/90 Association v. Sunil Mistry 07.01.03
New No. S.
5 Suit No. Mahalakeshwar Welfare ADJ, Delhi Pending
106/2004 Association v. Keshav Devi
& Ors.
6 Suit No. 287/03 Mahakaleshwar Welfare Sh. B.R. Kedia, Pending
New No. Association and ors v. ADJ, Delhi
S.980/08/03 Surendra Devi & ors.
7 Suit No. 487/03 Mahakaleshwar Welfare ADJ, Delhi Pending
New Association (Regd.) v.
No.233/08/03 Mallika Chaudhary
8 Suit No. 151/04 Mahakaleshwar Welfare ADJ, Delhi Decided on
New No. Association v. Pramod 24.09.08
S.193/04 Kumar
9 Suit No. Nil Mahakaleshwar Welfare Sh. N.K. Goel, Decided on
New No.02/09 Association v. Surendra ADJ-15 09.03.09
& Misc No. Singh and ors (Central Delhi)
10 Suit No. 85/04 Mahakaleshwar Welfare Sh. D.C. Decided on
New No. M Association v. Rashmi Rekha Anand, ADJ, 04.11.06
54/06 Nath and ors Delhi.
11 Suit No. 273/86 Ashok Nagar Welfare CJ, Delhi Decided on
New No. M Association v. Jawahar Lal 20.12.2004
86/02 and ors
12. Suit No. Mahakaleshwar Welfare Sh. K.S. Mohi, Decided on
154/2004 Association v. Geeta Mishra ADJ, Delhi 29.01.07
and ors
13 Suit No. . Mahakaleshwar Welfare Sh. K.S. Mohi, Decided on
273/03 New No. Association v. Chander ADJ, Delhi 29.01.07
263/05/03 Shekhar and ors
14 Suit No. 239/04 Mahakaleshear Welfare Sh. Sanjiv Jain, Pending
New No. Association v. Rekha ADJ (Central) 20.07.2009
S.244/09 Chaudhary Delhi.
312/93,New No. Association v. Daroga Rai
M 116/06 and ors
S.No. Case No. Parties name Name of Court Next date of
hearing, if any.
16 Suit No. 169/03 Mahakaleshwar Welfare ADJ, Delhi Pending
New No. S Association and another v.
268/08 V.N.G. Paul.
17 Suit No. 544/91 Ashok Nagar Welfare ADJ, Delhi Pending
New No. S. Association v. Birenjan Dass
332/2008 Gupta
18 Suit No. 486/03 Mahakaleshwar Welfare ADJ/Delhi Pending
New No. Association v. Sheela Dey
S.232/08/03 and ors
19 Suit No. 543/03 Mahakaleshwar Welfare Sh. Chandra Pending
Association v. S.K. Bhola Bose, ADJ-05
and ors (North) THC/
Delhi
20 Suit No. Mahakaleshwar Welfare Sh. Paramjit Decided on
676/04/03 Association v. S.S. Gill and Singh, 15.10.07
ors ADJ/Delhi
21 Suit No. 205/04 Mahakaleshwar Welfare ADJ, Delhi Pending
New No. Association v. Smt. Renu
S.231/08 Singh
22 Suit No. 309/98 Ashok Nagar Welfare Ms. Kiran Pending
New N0. 499/06 Association v. M.C . Malik Gupta, CJ,
Delhi
23 Suit No. 597/91 Mahakaleshwar Welfare Mr. Sunil Rana, Pending
New No. CS Association v. Vinod Kumar ADJ-03, (West)
144/09/91 Delhi
24 CC No. 1346/08 Mohan Singh v. V.K. 2nd Link MM, Pending
Aggarwal and ors. KKD, Delhi
25 RFA No. 200- DDA v. Ashok Nagar High Court Pending
201/06 Welfare Association 28.07.09
26 Suit No. Ashok Nagar Welfare High Court Pending
1913/2000 Association through Mohan 03.09.09
Singh v. Mangal Chakraborty
All these cases as also any other proceeding initiated by Mr.
Mohan Singh or the Ashok Nagar Welfare Association stand dismissed
forthwith. As stated hereinabove, the contemnor and the Association
have also undertaken to withdraw all proceedings in various forums
initiated by them.
23. Though we are discharging the notice of contempt, we must express
our anguish at the attempt of the contemnor and the Ashok Nagar
Welfare Association on soiling the purity of the stream of justice which
has to be kept clear and pure at all times. No one can be permitted to
undermine the dignity of the Court and interfere with the due course of
judicial proceedings or administration of justice. The contemnor and the
Association which he represents will be strictly bound by the
undertaking/affidavit filed by them in this Court. Nothing further
survives in the present proceedings and the same are accordingly
disposed of in terms of what is stated hereinabove. All pending
applications stand disposed of as well. It is ordered accordingly.
CHIEF JUSTICE
NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.
MAY 21, 2009
sb
