Delhi High Court
Anil Dutt Sharma vs Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & ... on 23 February, 2023
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001380
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd FEBRUARY, 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ LPA 104/2023 & CM APPLs. 6443-44/2023
ANIL DUTT SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Dwivedi and Ms.
Anushka Pandey, Advocates.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Mr. Vivek
Kumar and Mr. Naved Ahmed,
Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Ajjay Aroraa, Standing Counsel
for MCD with Mr.Kapil Dutta and
Mr. Anuj Bhargava, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. The instant LPA has been filed challenging the Order dated
27.11.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 37/2018, and
Order dated 08.12.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in the Review
Petition, being Review Petition No.27/2020, which was filed by the
Appellant herein in W.P.(C) 37/2018.
2. Facts of the case reveal that the Appellant herein approached this
Court by filing W.P.(C) 37/2018 with the following prayers:
"(i) Issue writ, order or direction in nature of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
directions to the Respondent.
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001380
(ii) Direct for CBI/Anti Corruption to investigate the
case and vigilance Enquiry EDMC.
(iii) Direct the Vigilance department and the Zonal
office to inform status of all complaints of the
petitioner and the police and name of the officer
responsible to intimate the status of the complaint after
disposal.
(iv) Direct the respondent No.1 to take disciplinary and
department action against the derelict officers Sh.
Atique Ahmad, CVO. Sh.Rajesh Kumar, EE (B) Sh.
Mandir and other concerned officers who have avoided
to take action under DMC Act and against the accused
persons under section 466A within the prescribed
period defined under section 471 DMC Act and did not
seal building under section 345A DMC Act."
3. It is stated in the Writ Petition that unauthorised construction for
commercial purpose is being carried out on properties No. D-246 and D-
248, Dilshad Garden. It is also stated that there is a third property, namely,
245, Dilshad Garden, where also unauthorized construction is going on.
4. Status Report has been filed by the Corporation. It is stated in the
Status Report that property No.D-246, Dilshad Garden, has been booked for
unauthorised construction and a demolition order has also been passed on
25.04.2016 but the owners/occupiers have filed an appeal against the
demolition order before the Appellate Tribunal Municipal Corporation of
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „the Appellate Tribunal‟) and the Appellate
Tribunal has passed an interim order in favour of the owners/occupiers. It is
further stated in the Status Report that properties No.D-245 and D-248 near
Mangal Bazar, Dilsahd Garden, Delhi do not exist and are not traceable.
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001380
5. After going through the material on record, the learned Single Judge,
vide Order dated 27.11.2019, disposed of the Writ Petition by holding that
the Respondents are taking steps to deal with the unauthorized construction
on the properties in question. Learned Single Judge held that property No.D-
246 has already been booked for unauthorised construction and a demolition
order has also been passed which is the subject matter of appeal pending
before the Appellate Tribunal and the Respondents were directed to abide by
the directions as may be passed in the said appeal. As far as properties No.
D-245 and D-248, Mangal Bazar, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, are concerned, the
learned Single Judge gave liberty to the Appellant herein to make a
representation to the Corporation by giving full details of the location of the
said two properties and further directed the Corporation that in case such a
representation is made, the Corporation shall deal with the same in
accordance with law and take appropriate steps.
6. The Appellant filed a Review Petition, being Review Petition
No.27/2020 challenging the Order dated 27.11.2019 by contending that the
Corporation misled this Court by stating that properties bearing No. D-245
and 248, Dilshad Garden near Mangal Bazar, Dilshad Garden, Delhi do not
exist and are not traceable. It is stated in the Review Petition that RTI
information reveals that there are two properties, i.e. D-246 and 246 (part).
It has been contended that properties No. D-245 and D-248 pertains to a part
of the property No.D-246.
7. The Review Petition has been disposed of vide Order dated
08.12.2022. A perusal of the Order dated 08.12.2022 shows that when a
specific query was put to the Appellant herein as to whether he has
approached the concerned authorities by filing a representation regarding
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001380
properties No. D-245 and D-248, Mangal Bazar, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, the
answer was in negative.
8. The Apex Court has time and again brought out that the scope of the
review is narrow and is confined only to errors apparent on the face of
record. There are definitive limits to the exercise of power of review, and the
Supreme Court has reiterated the circumstances wherein the review of a
judgement or an order can be sought. In Meera Bhanja (Smt.) v. Nirmala
Kumari Choudhury (Smt.), (1995) 1 SCC 170, the Apex Court had observed
as under:
"8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are
not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly
confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1,
CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of
the court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with
similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while
seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam
Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4
SCC 389 : AIR 1979 SC 1047] , speaking through
Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following pertinent
observations: (SCC p. 390, para 3)
"It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh
v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1909] , there is
nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude
the High Court from exercising the power of review
which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to
prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and
palpable errors committed by it. But, there are
definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review.
The power of review may be exercised on the
discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence was not
within the knowledge of the person seeking the review
or could not be produced by him at the time when the
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001380
order was made; it may be exercised where some
mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is
found; it may also be exercised on any analogous
ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground
that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would
be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review
is not to be confused with appellate power which may
enable an appellate court to correct all manner of
errors committed by the subordinate court."
(emphasis supplied)
9. No error apparent on the face of record has been brought out by the
Appellant in the Review Petition and, therefore, the learned Single Judge
was justified in dismissing the Review Petition. A perusal of the Review
Petition also shows that the Petitioner is a habitual litigant and is guilty of
filing frivolous petitions. It has also been observed in the said Order that FIR
No. 1110, under Section 384 IPC, has been registered against the Appellant
for extortion at P.S. Bhajanpura, Delhi. This fact has not been denied by the
Appellant.
10. The fact remains that property No.246 has already been booked by the
Corporation and demolition orders have been passed and an appeal has been
filed by the owners of the said property against the demolition order which
is pending before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellant herein has not filed
any representation as has been permitted by the learned Single Judge vide
Order dated 27.11.2019. No material has been placed on record by the
Appellant to show that there is an error apparent on the face of record. The
instant Appeal is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Looking at the
fact that the Appellant herein has already been saddled with the cost of
Rs.20,000/- which was imposed by the learned Single Judge while
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/001380
dismissing the Review Petition, this Court is not inclined to impose further
costs.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, along with pending
application(s), if any.
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, C.J.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
FEBRUARY23, 2023
Rahul
