Delhi High Court
Ca Nandlal Kedia vs Lt. Governor And Ors. on 22 April, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CMI No.3/2013
% 22nd April, 2014
CA NANDLAL KEDIA ....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ajay Raghav, Advocate.
VERSUS
LT. GOVERNOR AND ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Not only the suit was wholly frivolous but this appeal is also
wholly frivolous. The appeal is argued on behalf of the appellant by a
counsel who is appointed by the Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee. The subject suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking
application of Section 145 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. The
appellant/plaintiff claims that the Local Commissioner appointed by a civil
court in Bhiwani, Haryana alongwith the police wrongly broke upon the
locks of his office.
CMI No.3/2013 Page 1 of 3
2. The admitted facts however are that the appellant was in
litigation with his brother in the courts at Bhiwani in a partition suit and in
that suit after passing of the preliminary decree, a Local Commissioner was
appointed to suggest the mode of partition including by measuring the suit
property. Pursuant to the order of the civil court at Bhiwani, Local
Commissioner took police help and broke upon the locks of the property in
possession of the appellant/plaintiff and thereafter conducted the Local
Commissioner proceedings. These proceedings are challenged by means of
the subject suit under Section 145 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.
3. Section 145 of the Delhi Police Act reads as under:-
"Section 145. Persons interested may seek to annul, reverse or
alter any rule or order.-(1) In the case of any rule or order made by
the Administrator under an authority conferred by this Act and
requiring the public or a particular class of persons to perform some
duty or act and requiring the public or a particular class of persons to
perform some duty or act, or to conduct or order themselves for any
person interested to apply to the Administrator by a memorial to
annul, reverse, or alter the rule or order aforesaid on the ground of its
being unlawful, oppressive or unreasonable.
(2) After such an application as aforesaid and rejection thereof
wholly or in part or after the lapse of four months without an answer
to such application or a decision thereon published by the
Administrator, it shall be competent for the person interested and
deeming the rule or order to be contrary to law to institute a suit in
the principal civil court of original jurisdiction against the
Administrator for a declaration that the rule or order is unlawful
either wholly or in part.
CMI No.3/2013 Page 2 of 3
(3) Where in any suit instituted under sub-section (2) or on
appeal therefrom, the court adjudges a rule or order to the unlawful,
the rule or order shall be annulled or so altered as to make it
conformable to law."
4. It is clear that ex facie this provision does not apply because by
this provision an action of the Lieutenant Governor can be challenged by
which a general rule or notification is issued. In this case, no general rule or
notification of the Lieutenant Governor is challenged. In any case, the Local
Commissioner's action was pursuant to the court order and in such case
there cannot by any illegality committed by the Local Commissioner or by
the police.
5. Only for the reason that the appellant is represented through an
Advocate appointed by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, I
am therefore not imposing any costs while dismissing this frivolous appeal,
and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
APRIL 22, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
