Munni Devi vs Union Of India And Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1052 Del

*       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

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

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

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

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