Shree Dharmik Ramlila Committee vs Mcd & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3769 Del

*    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

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

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

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

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.

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

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