Delhi High Court
All India Bhrashtachar Virodhi ... vs Delhi Development Authority & ... on 12 October, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12th OCTOBER, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ W.P.(C) 82/2021 & CM APPLs. 263/2021, 4075/2022 &
41466/2022
ALL INDIA BHRASHTACHAR VIRODHI MORCHA (REGD.) &
ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. S. D. Windlesh, Advocate.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Garima Prasad, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Standing
Counsel for DDA with Ms. Parul
Parmar and Ms. Sharanya Sinha,
Advocate for R-1/DDA.
Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Meghna Mishra, Mr. Kartik
Nayar, Mr. Ankit Rajgarhia, Mr.
Tarun Sharma and Mr. Abhishek
Grover, Advocates for R-2
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing
Counsel for R-3/MCD.
Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, ASC for
GNCTD with Ms. Sheenu Priya, Mr.
Muhammad Zaid and Mr. Sudhir
Kumar Shukla, Advocates for R-4.
Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Ms.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 82/2021 Page 1 of 15
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:13.10.2022
14:22:47
Vidhi Jain, Ms. Kunjala Bhardwaj and
Mr. Madhav Bajaj, Advocates for R-5.
Mr. Karunesh Tandon and Mr. Rahul
Chauhan, Advocate for R-7/Delhi Jal
Board.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioners under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
"a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ (s),order (s), direction (s) to
respondent No.1/DDA to implement and compliance of
the orders and judgment dated 10.05.1996,28.04.2000,
01.03.2001, 25.03.2010 AND all other relevant orders
in the I.A. N0.129 IN LA. 22 in W.P. (C) N0.4677
of1985 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in;
b. Issue the order ( s) or direction ( s) to restrain
the respondent No.1 and 2 to act in pursuance of the
Memorandum of Understanding arrived between
D.D.A. and the D.L.F. Home Developers Ltd. dated
08.07.2015 and quash the Memorandum of
Understanding arrived between D.D.A. and the D.L.F.
Home Developers Ltd. dated 08.07.2015 being illegal,
arbitrary and against orders or directions issued on
10.05.1996 and25.03.2010 by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India:
c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s) to the
respondent No.1 to develop the129 acres of land as per
landscape prepared by respondentNo.1/DDA in 2011
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:13.10.2022
14:22:47
within 3 months and open the place for general public
for community use as is done by New Delhi Municipal
Counsel in case of Lodi Garden, Tal Katora Garden,
Nehru Park, Chanakyapuri etc. in Delhi;
d. Appoint an SIT consisting of officials of
Surveyor General of India/respondent No.5 to identify
129 acres of land came within the jurisdiction of
respondent No.1/DDA by the order of Hon'ble District
and Session Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and also
to identify the exact quantum of land retained by all
owners.
e. The three erstwhile closed industries such as
DCM Sri Ram Consolidated Ltd., SIEL Ltd. and
Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. As order by Hon'ble
District and Session Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in
execution case filed by DDA/Resp.No.1 before District
Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi in 2000.
f. Appropriate penalty for the commercial
exploitation of the said land meant for green be
imposed on official of Resp.No.1 and Respondent No.1
and 2. The official of Resp. No. 1 and 2 are involved in
the violation of Supreme Court's orders also be
punished as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper;
g. Issue direction or order to respondent
No.1/DDA & respondentNo.3/North MCD to restrain
the respondent No.2 from further construction either
flatted factories or residential flats I towers in any
portion of retained land of 3 erstwhile closed industrial
unit till the final disposal of the present case;
h. Respondent No.6/Central Ground Water Board
and respondentNo.7/Delhi Jal Board be directed to
place on record the permission related papers for five
Tube wells, bore wells and other two Delhi Jal Board
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:13.10.2022
14:22:47
connections with a K Numbers in the premises with its
locations and revenue earned from DLF Home
Developers by DJB since last 10 years.
i. Record of Dist. Judge HQ Tis Hazari,
Delhi/respondent No.4 be summoned in this Hon'ble
Court containing relevant orders/map of demarcated
land issued as warrant of possession in favour of DDA
by the Dist. Judge in respect of execution case
number162/2000 titled DDA vs. Amrit Industries
concerning three erstwhile closed units i.e. SB Mills/
SIEL/HIL.
j. The DDA/Resp.No.1 be directed to utilize half of
the amount of24.42 crores received from DMRC for
making this entire land of 129 acres as green/open
park for the use of larger public within 3 months by
giving access from different directions of129 acres
land as per local demand."
2. The Petitioner is before this Court alleging several transgressions of
the order dated 10.05.1996 passed in WP(C) No. 4677/1985 titled MC Mehta
v. Union of India &Ors., wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court called for the
creation of "lung space" in Delhi, and consequently directed the closure of
168 „H category‟ i.e. hazardous, noxious, heavy and large industries in Delhi
with effect from 20.11.1996.
3. Furthermore, it was directed to handover 68% to 57% of the land
available with the industries to Respondent No. 1 for exclusive development
of green pastures. Thereafter, it appears that, as none of the industries
surrendered their land, MC Mehta was compelled to file another application,
which resulted in the order dated 28.04.2000 which stated that the land
should be surrendered to the DDA within 4 weeks‟ time.
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:13.10.2022
14:22:47
4. The Petitioner has stated that the transgressions are as follows:-
5. The Petitioner has stated that in 2011, Respondent No. 1 developed
Phase-1 of the land for community purposes, and a park for opened for the
general public near BR Ambedkar University and behind Campa Cola
factory at Shivaji Marg, New Delhi-110015.
6. However, in 2015, a new iron gate and installed and the general public
was barred from accessing the park. Since then, the entry is only allowed by
DLF security personnel.
7. Thereafter, it has been stated that Respondent No. 1 in collusion with
Respondent No. 2 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU")
dated 08.07.2015. The following clauses assume importance and are being
reproduced below:-
"That the voluntary agency shall develop and maintain
the said DDA parks/greens belonging to DDA to the
satisfaction of VC/DDA or any other officer
empowered by him on his behalf as per the terms and
conditions laid hereinunder.
That the said DDA park/green shall be open to the
general public without any entry fee during specified
timings and as per DDA standard Do's and Don'ts, The
voluntary agency shall use the land of the DDA
park/green only for development and maintenance of
the park/green and shall not transfer the maintenance
and development of the park/greens to any other
person, society, company,, department, organization
etc, and the agency shall not enter into sub-agreement
for maintenance etc..."
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:13.10.2022
14:22:47
8. It is the case of the Petitioner that the MOU is directly in teeth of the
Order dated 25.03.2010 passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, which reads
as under:-
"Therefore, whenever such open/lung space is created,
it shall be shown in the Municipal/DDA records as
"DDA land-dedicated by *****. The DDA shall
maintain a Trust Account of such surrendered lands.
This would mean that DDA which holds the
surrendered and dedicated land in Trust cannot use it
for any purpose other than as green belt or other
spaces for the benefit of the community. This will be
necessary to identify if the land held by DDA in trust
for the community is not lost and is not treated as DDA
owned lands which can be dealt with by DDA as
absolute owner."
"But any such consolidation or exchange shall be only
with the sanction of the District Court, Delhi, after
notice to the land owners dedicators. Any change in
use of such surrendered land held in Trust by DDA or
any transfer by DDA shall be only after securing prior
permission from the High Court of Delhi."
9. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the MOU has been
entered into in contempt of the above-mentioned Order and signifies an
exploitation of the land which is meant for development of lung space and
greenery. It has further been alleged by the Petitioner that Respondent No. 2
has developed a township for the construction of 23 High-rise Towers at the
land.
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:13.10.2022
14:22:47
10. It has further been alleged that Respondent No. 2 has been operating 5
bore wells for commercial purposes since 2010, without a meter and no
revenue has been paid to the government.
11. Per contra, the counsel for Respondent No. 1 has argued that the
Petitioner has come to this Court with unclean hands. It has been brought to
the attention of this Court that the prayer pertaining to cancellation of MOU
has already been adjudicated upon by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in IA No.
76602 in WP(C) No. 4677/1985, which dismissed the application vide Order
dated 19.09.2018 on the ground that it was devoid of merits.
12. It is the contention of the Respondent that the Petitioner is guilty of
forum shopping and hence, does not deserve any indulgence of this Court.
13. Furthermore, it has been contended that there is an undue delay of
about 6 years in challenging the MOU as it had been entered into back on
08.07.2015.
14. The counsel for Respondent No. 2 has raised grounds similar to
Respondent No.1.The first contention of the Respondent No. 2 is regarding
the maintainability of this Petition. The counsel has placed on record a
detailed table which depicts the similarity of petitions and applications
previously filed by the Petitioner, to the instant Petition to argue that the
instant Petition is barred by res judicata.
15. Heard the counsel for the Petitioner, and the Respondents and perused
the material on record.
16. From a perusal of the facts, it is evident that the Petitioner has
previously also filed several Writ Petitions and applications, seeking
identical relief from this Court, and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. In the
instant Writ Petition the Petitioner has inter alia, sought the following: -
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:13.10.2022
14:22:47
a. Implementation of the orders and judgment dated
10.05.1996,28.04.2000, 01.03.2001, 25.03.2010 and all other
relevant orders in the I.A. N0.129 IN LA. 22 in W.P. (C) N0.4677
of 1985 by Hon'ble Supreme Court;
b. Quashing of the MOU dated 08.07.2015, and restraint Respondent
No. 2 from constructing anything on Respondent No. 1;
c. Development of 19 acres of land as per landscape prepared by the
d. Appoint an SIT consisting of officials of Surveyor General of
India/respondent No.5 to identify 129 acres of land came within the
jurisdiction of respondent No.1/DDA
e. Appropriate penalty for the commercial exploitation of the said
land meant for green be imposed on official of Resp.No.1 and
Respondent No.1 and 2.
f. The DDA/Resp.No.1 be directed to utilize half of the amount of
24.42 crores received from DMRC for making this entire land of
129 acres as green/open park for the use of larger public.
17. Respondent No. 2 has filed a table regarding the petitions and the
applications filed by the Petitioner to show that the reliefs sought for in this
writ petition have been sought for before the Apex Court and this Court,
which is reproduced as under: -
WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO.82 of 2021 EARLIER FILED PILS /WRIT
PETITIONS /APPLICATIONS
WITH SIMILAR RELIEFS
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:13.10.2022
14:22:47
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:13.10.2022
14:22:47
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:13.10.2022
14:22:47
18. From a perusal of the foregoing table, it is evident that all the prayers
sought before this Court have already been adjudicated upon by this Court
and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
19. Application bearing I.A. No.76602/2017 in W.P.(C) 4677/1985 was
filed in the Apex Court with the following prayers:-
"a. Declare that the agreement dated 08.07.2015
entered into between Respondent No. 1 and
Respondent No. 2 with respect to the land surrendered
by the applicant is without authority, contrary to the
judgments dated 10.05.1996 and 25.03.2010, passed by
this Hon'ble Court and therefore illegal, null and void;
b. Direct the Respondent No. 1 to remit the possession
of the land admeasuring 18.854 hectares situated at
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:13.10.2022
14:22:47
15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi to the applicant who is
lawful owner of the said land;
c. Permit the applicant to put to use the land
admeasuring 18.854 hectares situated at 15, Shivaji
Marg, New Delhi as per the provisions of the Master
Plan for Delhi-2021;
d. In the alternative to prayers (b) and (c) and in the
event Respondent No. 1 wishes to acquire the entire
surrendered land from the applicant, this Hon'ble
Court may pass appropriate directions for acquisition
of the surrendered land from the applicant, this
Hon'ble Court may pass appropriate directions for
acquisition of the surrendered land in accordance with
law; and
e. Pass such other and further order or orders as this
Hon'ble Cowl may be deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the interests of
justice;"
20. The prayers in the application and in the Writ Petition are similar in
nature. The said application came up for hearing and was decided by an
Order dated 19.09.2018 by the Apex Court and the application was rejected.
Several other orders of the Apex Court have also been produced by the DDA
to substantiate its contention. It is also stated that the Petitioner herein was
also a party before the Apex Court and was, therefore, aware of this fact.
21. It is trite law that the writ remedy is an equitable one. A person
approaching this Court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only
should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the
legal proceedings repeatedly as the same amounts to abuse of the process of
law. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has laid down this principle in a catena of
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:13.10.2022
14:22:47
judgments, including K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481 wherein the
following has been stated: -
"34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under
Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and
discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are
issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of
utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the
writ court must come with clean hands, put forward
all the facts before the court without concealing or
suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief.
If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and
material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading
the court, his petition may be dismissed at the
threshold without considering the merits of the claim.
36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course.
While exercising extraordinary power a writ court
would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party
who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the
applicant makes a false statement or suppresses
material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court
may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may
refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating,
"We will not listen to your application because of what
you have done." The rule has been evolved in the
larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants
from abusing the process of court by deceiving it.
38. The above principles have been accepted in our
legal system also. As per settled law, the party who
invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:13.10.2022
14:22:47
of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank
and open. He must disclose all material facts without
any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot
be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and
choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress
(keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts.
The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in
disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If
material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very
functioning of writ courts and exercise would become
impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts
having a bearing on the relief sought without any
qualification. This is because "the court knows law but
not facts".
39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington
Income Tax Commrs. [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257
: 116 LT 136 (CA)] is kept in mind, an applicant who
does not come with candid facts and "clean breast"
cannot hold a writ of the court with "soiled hands".
Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an
advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring
or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable
and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not
disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states
them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the
court has inherent power in order to protect itself and
to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule
nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination
of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the
petition on that ground, the court would be failing in
its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt
with for contempt of court for abusing the process of
the court." (emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:13.10.2022
14:22:47
22. As already stated, similar reliefs have been sought before the Apex
Court and this Court which have already been dealt with and decided. Since
the issues have already been decided, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to
come with the same issues again even though the Petitioners herein are not
the Petitioner in those applications. In public interest, the same issues cannot
be permitted to be raised again and again by different parties. It appears that
the Petitioner is before this Court simply to try his luck again, and is
evidently engaging in forum shopping by falsely presenting itself as a
conscientious organisation out to fight the supposed corruption and nepotism
23. It is abundantly evident that the Petitioner has come to this Court with
unclean hands, has approached the facts of the instant matter in a clandestine
manner to mislead this Court. In light of this, this Court does not find any
reason to consider the Petition, and finds it appropriate to dismiss it at the
threshold.
24. Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed and any pending application(s)
stands disposed of.
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
OCTOBER 12, 2022
Rahul
Signature Not Verified
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:13.10.2022
14:22:47
