Ms. Charumati Sharma vs Chairman , Dda
2019 Latest Caselaw 3483 Del

$~24
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 29.07.2019

+        W.P.(C) 1756/2019
         MS. CHARUMATI SHARMA                                 ..... Petitioner
                             Through      Petitioner in person.

                             versus

         CHAIRMAN , DDA                                      ..... Respondent
                      Through             Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Sr. Adv. with
                                          Mr.Akshay Chandra, Ms.Parul Parthi
                                          & Ms.Shweta Saini, Advs. for DDA.
                                          Mr.Rajiv Gandhi, Comm.(Housing),
                                          Mr.B.M. Thareja DW(H), Mr.J.S.
                                          Negi, Dy. Dir.(SFS), Mr.Naresh Kr.
                                          Sharma, Asstt. Dir.(SFS),
                                          Mr.Dwivedi, Jr. Law Officer &
                                          Mr.A.K. Arora, AE (SWD-6)

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                             J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction as under:

i. Issue appropriate orders against DDA to stop deliberate threats

against person and premises of complainant escalated by DDA and its

employees and contractors during proceedings and

ii. Issue Writ against DDA for restoring the overhead water tank

stolen/broken by mischief of DDA contractors and

iii. That the DDA stop employing and using the services of its trained

criminals, rapists, eve teasers (chowkidaars and employees of RWA

police gangs claiming ("haftas") weekly payments from criminals for

ignoring the crimes; and

iv. That the honourable Delhi High Court may issue appropriate Writ to

restore the car garage adjoining ground floor flat to the ground floor

flat for protection of right to live safely in the flat without threat of

deliberate violation of privacy and right to life and personal liberty.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner returned to India after

studying Actuarial science in USA after 4 yrs service in US insurance

companies as actuary. The petitioner returned to India after an unhappy

marriage and divorce and joined Life Insurance Corporation of India

(hereinafter referred to as 'LIC') as Assistant Administrative Officer

(actuarial). The petitioner resigned from LIC in 2003 at the age of 47 years.

Thereafter, the petitioner applied for 2 bedroom flat M.I.G. (SFS) in Delhi

Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'DDA') in its 6th Self

Financing Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'SFS') in August 1985 for her

parents who were at that time residing abroad. The petitioner requested the

DDA on application forms a car garage for her parents. She had added her

own, car garage along with scooter garage on the application form and DDA

accepted the application for MIG flat with scooter and car garage but

conspired to build car garage alongside the flat for breaking in and robbery

and raised criminal gangs from police and DDA for enabling DDA

conspiracy against the female applicant and her parents. The DDA built

garage in sector 22 DDA (SFS) flats against government orders and in

defiance of authority in pursuit of its perverted, debased, depraved

conspiracy to turn the petitioner into a slave for begging, sex trade and

sexual assault to mock the smart independent foreign returned beautiful

woman actuary who sought safety in India in employment in public sector to

avoid any irreligious life in USA after divorce. The DDA applied to the

Government, Ministry of Urban Development for permission to add car

garages to the flats under 6th SFS scheme but the same was refused.

However, the then Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and Urban

Development accordingly approved that the payment of installment money

can be aided by loans only from LIC. However, DDA built the car garages

alongside the ground floor flats in sector 22 mentioned above, but did not

allot the car garage especially at time of handing over the flats. The building

of flats in question was delayed by DDA by many years to do away with

objections by Minister of Urban Development & Prime Minister and avoid

Government scrutiny and protection of law and order in the matter. Thus,

the DDA either conspired or encouraged conspiracy against the legal heirs

on record in DDA. The said authority delayed final plans of the car garages

until preference of area and floors were taken from the petitioner and her

father, which was taken during the period after Rajiv Gandhi's (former

Prime Minister) assassination when Government had suspended office work

for a month.

3. Further case of the petitioner is, as per Government report, the plane

which was found fit for the flight after inspection at Lakshadweep and on

record is a flawless flight from Lakshadweep to Cochin went out of control

immediately after takeoff and went into a spiraling uncontrollable

acceleration of speed due to ill fitting acceleration shaft nuts which resemble

the nuts used in DDA sewerage covered in Dwarka sector 22. However, the

nuts used by the airlines for its plane at Lakshadweep had perfect threads

whereas the nuts on the acceleration shafts after service at Cochin were

defective, had loose threads and did not fit and fell off causing

uncontrollable acceleration immediately which caused the crash. The ill

fitting bolts/nuts with threads not suitable for the Dornier aircraft

acceleration shaft where it was replaced by service found to be with DDA

for it was fitted on sewerage covers in DDA SFS flats sector 22, Dwarka

only. The same covers were denied to petitioner complainant after

displaying.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is seeking car garage in Sector

22, Dwarka, in the DDA, SFS, MIG flats. It is pertinent to mention here that

the petitioner has stated in the writ petition vide paras 9, 28, 36, 38, 42, 44,

57 & 65 which are reproduced below:

"9.That DDA accepted the application for MIG flat with scooter and car garage but conspired to build car garage alongside the flat for breaking in and robbery and raised criminal all gangs from police and DDA for enabling DDA conspiracy-against the female applicant and her parents.

28. That the DDA appoints its own employees as chowkidaars along police gangs trained in soiling foundations of buildings for humiliation of females and causing rift in families and the chowkidaars and the sweeper enjoy use of car garages for urinals and toiletry and the same have in past history lead to family disunification, rape, murder and enslavement of the females and sons.

36. That the car garage is being used by DDA and built by DDA against the government orders with the malicious purpose of enlarging sexual abuse of single woman applicant and in deliberate display of perverted conduct of DDA and state .

38. That the DDA appoints its own employees as chowkidaars along police gangs trained in soiling foundations of buildings for humiliation of females and causing rift in families and the chowkidaars and the sweeper.

42 That after reply of the complainant to the W.R. the DDA deliberately adopted an attitude of stalling proceedings and delays for long periods which were used by DDA to deliberately cause fear and terror and humiliation it the complainant by use of obscene and insulting remarks near the windows.

44. That DDA caused ongoing delays in proceedings and used, the delays to exhibits it's criminal intent through direct recruitment and employment of rapists in car garage opposite the flat and used the police "press wala" from Dwarka North police than a to be continuous lying in touch with their game in sector 22 DDA flats and have helped the family resettle in an unlabeled flat on rooftop and broke the cover of the rooftop water tank sold to consumer for water storage along with the flat and caused and encouraged theft of water after a major, discriminatory escalation of water changes and inclusion of illegal Cess tax and sewerage tax and deliberately caused the delivery pipes to break, installed a alternative water-supply with and without meter for adjoining flats and refused to repair the same rather simultaneously increased the water charges for the sector and also for sector 4 discriminating between females single and families deliberately violating my equal right to life and property and freedom of association .

57. That DDA built the car garages in sector 22, Dwarka, against at the government orders and did not disclose or warn the consumer of criminal conspiracies of mentally perverted employees who take advantage of DDA records, office for crimes against women duplicating their wealth with forced enslavement of women and their

sons for promoting a degraded industry of begging, murder and robbery prevailing through the DDA, its associates in police.

65. That DDA has used office and power to be a public nuisance and make mischief in the matter of use of car garages for safe guarding cars arid encouraging and forming criminal groups for violating privacy of females, and threatens sexual assault whenever the perverted employees of DDA and their associates in police are denied entry and the use of the car garage for rape and murder is being threatened by the car garage owners.

5. In view of the averments made by the petitioner in the aforesaid paras,

this matter was recused by Hon'ble Justice C. Hari Shankar on 20.02.2019

by passing order as under:

"I had put it to the petitioner who appeared in person that the pleadings in this writ petition were somewhat intemperate and it would be advisable to tone them down. The petitioner submits that I am pleading the cause of the DDA, rather than the cause of justice. She reiterates the averment, submitting that, by requesting her to tone down the language used in the writ petition, I am "siding with the DDA".

In my view, a court, in whom the litigant has no faith, ought not to hear the matter. It would not, therefore, be advisable for me to hear this case.

List this matter before another Bench, subject to orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on 5th March, 2019."

6. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner in person and she

has been appearing in person only. Moreover, the petitioner is claiming to

be an advocate and her enrollment number is D/279/2009. On the last date

of hearing, this court specifically asked the petitioner, what she wants in the

present petition. She only confined to the prayer that let the respondents be

directed to allot her a car garage. On the last date of hearing, the respondents

did not have the record, therefore, could not assist the court properly. Vide

order dated 22.07.2019, the respondents DDA were directed to produce

record regarding the garages.

7. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

DDA has produced the record and from the record, it is revealed that there

are 168 garages in the housing society in question and the said garages were

constructed from 1996 to 1998 and allotted from February 2002 to 2004. He

submits, four flats make a group and total flats in the society are 672. If it is

divided by 4, it comes 168.

8. Mr.Bansal further submits that one garage is allotted to one group of

flats. The flat number of the petitioner is 593. In the group wherein the

petitioner is staying are flat Nos. 593, 594, 595 and 596 and the petitioner is

having 593.

9. It is not in dispute that a garage has been allotted to flat no.594. The

grievance of the petitioner is that her father applied somewhere in the year

1991 for car garages. Despite, the application has not been considered and

garage has been allotted to the allottee for flat No. 594. Thereafter the

petitioner wrote several letters to the respondents seeking to allot her the

garage.

10. It is also not in dispute that the respondents had invited application for

garages in the year 2001 through public advertisement, however, father of

petitioner did not apply. Therefore, her pleas were ignored on the ground

that neither father of the petitioner was applicant nor the petitioner had filed

any application within the time as mentioned in the public notice of year

2001.

11. The fact remains that there are total 672 flats and with four flats, one

group is made and each group, one garage is to be allotted. To the group in

which the petitioner is having a flat, recently garage has been allotted by the

computer draw, therefore, there is no policy to allot second garage to that

group.

12. This court put a specific query to the petitioner that in which year her

father applied for the garage. She replied in the year 1991, whereas the

respondents sought application in the year 2001 and construction of the

garages started in the year 1996 onwards to 1998. Thus, there was no

question to make an application for garage when there was no garage in

existence. The petitioner also failed to establish that she made application in

the year 2001 when they invited the application through public notice.

13. It is not out of place to mention here that the petitioner is a single lady

and claimed to be an advocate. Any authority, including this court expects

from an educated citizen to behave with the authority in a decent manner. If

the authority creates any nuisance, there is a provision in law by which one

can agitate his or her grievance. My esteemed colleague Justice C. Hari

Shankar has made certain observations in his order mentioned above and I

have gone through the contents of the petition made by the petitioner, which

cannot be accepted.

14. In such situation, it is the duty of the court to issue proceedings

against the petitioner especially who claimed to be an advocate.

15. However, I hereby refrain myself from doing so, for the reason that

she lost her father and she is a single lady. By appearance, she seems to be

more than 70 years old, whereas, she is 63 years old. Somehow, she is

frustrated and because of that she is fighting with the authorities.

16. In view of above, I hereby find no ground to pass any order in the

present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

17. At this stage, the petitioner in person was constantly pressing this

court to pass order and direct the respondents to allot a car garage and not

allowed this court to proceed further in next matter. Thus, she has wasted

public time, therefore, I hereby impose cost of ₹50,000/- to be paid within

four weeks from the receipt of this order, in favour of Delhi High Court

Legal Service Committee, failing which the Registrar General of this Court

shall take steps as per law to ensure recovery from the petitioner.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE JULY 29, 2019 ab