Satender Kumar Jain vs Mcd & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2854 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              W.P.(C) 3504/2011 & CM No.7335/2011


                                                Decided on: 1st May, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF :

SATENDER KUMAR JAIN                              ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Padam Kumar Khanna, Advocate
                   alongwith the petitioner in person


                  versus


MCD & ORS.                                          ..... Respondents
                        Through: Ms.Mansi Gupta, Advocate for R-1/MCD
                        Mr.Bhupesh Narula, Advocate for R-2.
                        Mr.Shiv Charan Garg and Mr.Imran Khan,
                        Advocates for R-4


CORAM

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying

inter alia for calling upon the respondent No.1/MCD to reinstall the statue

of Shaheed Bhagat Singh in the MCD park near Mata Mandir, Roop

Nagar, Delhi, allegedly removed by the respondent No.3 in collusion with

the officials of the respondents No.1 & 2.

2. Notice was issued on the present petition vide order dated

23.5.2011 and it was directed that till the next date of hearing, status quo

be maintained by MCD with regard to installation of any statue in the park

in question described by the petitioner as "Shaheed Bhagat Singh Park".

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/MCD has questioned

the locus standi of the petitioner to file the present petition as it is

contended that he is neither residing in, nor working in the area in

question, nor has he shown how he has a particular interest in the area in

question.

4. Upon a pointed query addressed to the learned counsel for

the petitioner as to the particular reason for seeking the relief as sought

in the present petition in respect of installation of a bust of Shaheed

Bhagat Singh in a park in an area where he is neither residing nor

working, no satisfactory reply is given by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, except for stating that one day when the petitioner was

passing by the park, he had noticed that some unknown persons were

trying to remove the statue of Shaheed Bhagat Singh which made him file

this petition. A perusal of the writ petition shows that no such averment

has actually been made by the petitioner therein.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the

petitioner is a member of a Society by the name of "Shaheed Bhagat

Singh Brigade Samaj Sudhar Samiti", which is a registered society and

that presently, he is holding the post of a Joint Secretary of the said

Samiti and therefore he has an interest in filing this petition. However,

the present petition has not been filed by the petitioner in his capacity as

Joint Secretary of the Samiti, but in his personal capacity. Further, the

documents enclosed by the respondent No.4, Sh.Sneh Suman, with the

reply filed by him reveals that upon an RTI query filed by him with the

Registrar of Societies enquiring as to whether the petitioner herein is a

member of the Samiti, the reply given was in the negative. Similarly, the

office of the Registrar of Societies informed respondent No.4 that as per

its records, the petitioner is not a Joint Secretary of the said Samiti.

6. Counsel for the respondent No.4 states that the list of

members that was supplied by the Registrar of Societies in an earlier

reply to an RTI query filed by the respondent No.4, reveals that the

name of the petitioner is not mentioned therein. He hands over a set of

documents stated to have been obtained in reply to RTI applications filed

by respondent No.4 with the office of the Registrar of Societies, a perusal

whereof confirms the fact that the name of the petitioner does not feature

in the list of the Governing Body of the Samiti, that was registered in the

year 2008. The said documents are taken on record.

7. Pertinently, the petitioner has not placed on record any

document authorizing him to file any such petition on behalf of Shaheed

Bhagat Singh Brigade Samaj Sudhar Samiti, as a Joint Secretary thereof.

Further, a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition reveals that

allegations have been levelled against one Sh. Vidya Sagar, impleaded as

respondent No.3 and who is stated to be a resident of Shakti Nagar. But

on 17.1.2012, Mr.Shiv Charan Garg, Advocate had entered appearance

for Sh.Sneh Suman and had stated that there was no such person by the

name of Sh.Vidya Sagar residing at the address mentioned by the

petitioner in the memo of parties and that his client, Sh.Sneh Suman is a

resident of the aforesaid premises. Resultantly, the petitioner was

directed to amend the memo of parties by impleading Sh.Sneh Suman as

respondent No.4 in the present proceedings.

8. The allegations levelled against the respondent No.3 in the

present petition are that he is a builder of the area who has won over the

staff of the respondents No.1 & 2 who have joined him to use force to

remove the statute of Shaheed Bhagat Singh from the park in question

with the sole intention of installing of statue of his father, Dr.Indra

Chandra Shastri therein. It is further claimed that a complaint of this

incident was lodged with the local police station as the residents were

feeling threatened due to the removal of the statue from the park in

question.

9. In a detailed affidavit filed by respondent No.1/MCD, it has

been submitted that there was no statue of Shaheed Bhagat Singh

installed in the park in question and the contents of the police complaint

reveal that they are contrary to the correct facts mentioned by the

petitioner. Learned counsel for MCD draws the attention of this Court to a

report of the local police dated 23.4.2011(Annexure R-9), wherein, it was

stated that some parties were trying to install a statue of Shaheed Bhagat

Singh in the park in question instead of the statue of Dr.Indra Chandra

Shastri. She states that proper procedure was followed by the

respondent No.1/MCD for installing the statue of late Dr.Indra Chandra

Shastri in the park in question. Dr.Shastri is stated to be a renowned

Indologist, Philosopher, Scholar, Author and Social Reformer and a former

Head of the Department of Sanskrit, Institute of Post Graduate Studies,

Delhi University. The earlier site located for installation of the statue was

proposed at a round about near Roshnara Police Station, Roop Nagar, but

the said location had to be changed in terms of the guidelines laid down

by the Ministry of Urban Development and the new location proposed was

at the MCD Park in question situated in Roop Nagar.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/MCD draws the

attention of this Court to the minutes of the meeting of the Naming

Committee of the Corporation regarding the installation of the statue/bust

of Dr. Indra Chandra Shastri in the MCD park in question, enclosed as

Annexure R-2 to the counter affidavit. It is further averred in the affidavit

that the petitioner has not placed on record any documents to show that

the park in question was ever named as Shaheed Bhagat Singh park.

Instead, it is asserted that the park in question was always identified as a

MCD park.

11. As regards the respondent No.4, learned counsel for

respondent No.4 points out the photographs enclosed with the affidavit

dated 30.4.2012 to support the submissions made by counsel for the

respondent No.1/MCD that there is already a statue of Shaheed Bhagat

Singh installed in Roop Nagar which is at a distance of about 200 meters

from the MCD park in question and therefore there is no good reason to

install another statue of Shaheed Bhagat Singh in the same locality. The

photographs placed on record confirm that a bust of Shaheed Bhagat

Singh has already been installed in a park situated in Roop Nagar.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances that have

emerged and in the absence of any cogent explanation offered by learned

counsel for the petitioner to establish the locus standi of the petitioner to

file the present petition, the Court is inclined to accept the submission of

the counsels for the MCD and respondent No.4 that the present petition

appears to be a case of proxy litigation. Learned counsel for the

petitioner has not been able to rebut any of the submissions made by the

respondent No.1/MCD in its affidavit dated 18.8.2011. Nor has he been

able to explain as to why another statue of Shaheed Bhagat Singh must

be installed at a distance of 200 meters from a park in the same locality

where such a statue has already been installed. On the other hand, MCD

has been able to offer a satisfactory explanation for installing the statue

of Dr.Indra Chandra Shastri in the MCD park in question.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/MCD states that due

to the present misconceived petition filed by the petitioner and the status

quo orders that came to be passed in this petition, the ongoing work of

construction and installation of the bust had to be stalled and resultantly,

MCD has had to suffer financial losses. She urges that if the court

proposes to dismiss the writ petition, then exemplary costs ought to be

imposed upon the petitioner to ensure that the same acts as a deterrent

to the public from filing frivolous litigations in future.

14. This Court has taken into consideration the averments made

in the petition as also the responses filed by the respondent No.1/MCD

and respondent No.4. It is quite apparent that the petitioner has not been

able to substantiate his claim that any statue of Shaheed Bhagat Singh

was ever installed at the MCD park in question at Roop Nagar. Nor has

he been able to establish his locus standi to file the present petition.

This petition appears to be a motivated one and more in the nature of a

proxy litigation where the petitioner is acting as a front for some

interested parties as most of the allegations levelled in the writ petition

are directed against one Sh.Vidya Sagar, who was impleaded as

respondent No.3, but the petitioner has not been able to establish the

identity of any such person. Nor has such a person been found to be

residing at the address given in the memo of parties. Instead, Sh.Sneh

Suman, son of Dr.Indra Chandra Shastri is residing at the given address

and has come forward to seek impleadment in the present proceedings

and explain his case.

15. It is therefore deemed appropriate to dismiss the present

petition, along with the pending application with costs of `30,000/-

imposed on the petitioner for indulging in frivolous litigation and not only

wasting the court's time but also causing financial loss to the respondent

No.1/MCD. The costs shall be deposited by the petitioner with the

respondent/MCD within four weeks from today. Proof of deposit shall be

filed on record immediately thereafter. In case, the costs are not

deposited within the stipulated period, respondent No.1/MCD shall be

entitled to treat the same as arrears of revenue take steps for recovering

the same from the petitioner, as per law.

                                                             (HIMA KOHLI)
MAY 01, 2012                                                    JUDGE
mk/anb