Delhi High Court
Ravikant vs Public Works Department And Ors on 31 May, 2017
$~5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 31.05.2017
+ W.P.(C) 5041/2017
RAVIKANT ..... Petitioner
versus
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND ORS .... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra with Mr.
Vishal Kalra and Mr. Lal Babu Lalit,
Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi with Mr.
Rizwan , Advocates for respondent
Nos.1, 4 to 6.
Mr. Ajjay Aroraa with Mr. Kapil Dutta
and Ms. Diksha Lal, Advocates for
respondent No.2.
Mr. Parvinder Chauhan with Mr.
Nitin Jain, Advocates for DUSIB.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
31.05.2017
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM No.21688 /2017 (permission to file lengthy synopsis)
For the reasons stated in the application, the application is
allowed.
The lengthy synopsis is taken on record.
W.P.(C) 5041/2017 & CM No.21687/2017 (permission to represent
all the persons concerned in Annexure P-1)
1. The petitioner, who claims to be aged 25 years, has filed this
petition, inter alia, seeking rehabilitation and relocation of the
erstwhile residents of the slums of Indra Camp, Block 19, Trilok Puri,
Delhi as per the Scheme of the Government prior to the date of
demolition.
2. On 23.11.2001, demolition of the slum cluster took place and
the jhuggis were demolished. It is contended that on the said date i.e.
23.11.2001, the petitioner was aged about 10 years and was living in
the said slum.
3. It is contended that the petitioner, after the demolition, was
forced to go back to his village in Agra and lived there and completed
his matriculation.
4. It is contended that the petitioner, thereafter in the year 2013,
came to Delhi to find out that all his school friends of Delhi were not
able to go back to school because of the demolition and were working
as daily wagers or domestic help.
5. The petitioner, thereafter, is stated to have made several
applications under the Right to Information Act. It is contended that
the petitioner, after great efforts, was able to gather all the information
with regard to the demolition that was carried out in the year 2001.
6. The petitioner, thereafter, made representations seeking
rehabilitation for the slum dwellers, who were displaced on account of
the demolition on 23.11.2001. As no relief was forthcoming, the
petitioner has filed the present petition.
7. Admittedly, the demolition action took place on 23.11.2001.
As per the contention of the petitioner, the slum dwellers, thereafter,
relocated. The petitioner went back to Agra and has after a gap of
over 12 years, in 2013, started making RTI applications.
8. The petitioner, thereafter, has now after further four years has
approached this Court. The petition has been filed nearly 16 years
after the demolition action in 2001 seeking directions for
rehabilitation and relocation of the slum dwellers, who had allegedly
been displaced on account of the demolition action.
9. The petitioner is not able to point out as to whether any of the
erstwhile slum dwellers or any other individual/entity had ever filed
any petition qua the said demolition action.
10. The present petition, in my view, is highly belated and suffers
from gross delay and latches.
11. In view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain the petition.
12. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay
and latches.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 31, 2017/st
