IN
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ORIGINAL CIVIL
JURISDICTION
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.
721 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO
13604 OF 2023
IN
THE MATTER OF
SEEMA
SAPRA … Petitioner
Versus
DELHI
POLICE COMMISSIONER
& OTHERS …Respondents
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Devesh
Kumar Mahla IPS AGMUT 2012
Presently
posted as DCP New Delhi
….CONTEMNOR/
RESPONDENT
PETITION
UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971
The
Petitioner abovenamed respectfully submits as under:
1.
The brief facts are as follows.
|
1 June 2023 |
Protection order passed
by Delhi High Court IN THE HIGH COURT OF
DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 437/2018 SEEMA SAPRA .....
Petitioner Through: Petitioner in
person. versus UNION OF INDIA &
ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms Monika
Arora, CGSC with Mr Yash Tyagi and Mr
Subhrodeep, Advocate for CGSC. Ms Priyanka Dalal, APP
for the State with SI Pramod Kumar,
Cyber Cell, Crime Branch. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R 01.06.2023 1. The petitioner
appearing in person has been heard for sometime. 2. She also submits
that she faces threat to her life. Let DCP (South West) look into it and
shall provide all possible protection to her in accordance with law. 3. List for further
arguments on 16.08.2023, the date already fixed. VIKAS MAHAJAN, J JUNE 1, 2023 |
|
|
6 October 2023 |
Document described as
Status Report of Respondent No. 3 filed by Counsel Anand V Khatri vide Diary
No 1845020/2023 in Delhi High Court WP Crl 437/2018. This was filed under the
Signature of lawyer Anand V Khatri. Copy was sent on 6 October 2023 (at 19.16)
to the Petitioner by Anand Khatri through WhatsApp. This Status Report is
undated. The alleged Status Report on page 8 bears
what purport to be the signature and stamp of Manoj C. as then DCP South West
District. The alleged Status
Report itself is 8 pages long. It also has Annexures from A - G running from
pages 9 to 138. Annexures A & B are
described as copies of DD entries. Annexures C, D, E, F
are copies of court orders. Annexure G is described
as a “threat assessment report”. On a bare perusal, this one-page document with the date and document number deliberately
obscured is prima facie a forged document. Instead of complying
with the Court Order dated 1 June 2023, DCP Manoj C. then posted as DCP South
West (and who was already targeting the Petitioner in a criminal conspiracy
to murder her in her rented premises in Rajokri), entered into an additional
criminal conspiracy with other persons including the SHO of Vasant Kunj South
Police Station Sahdev Kumar Rana to cover up his role in the ongoing attempts
to murder the Petitioner, and to cover up his refusal and failure to comply
with the Court Order dated 1 June 2023, and acting with malafides and
criminal mens rea and acting in furtherance of both these criminal
conspiracies, filed a fraudulent Status Report in WP Crl 437/ 2018 through
counsel Anand Khatri. This Status Report
contains several false statements intended to mislead the Court. The Status
Report is essentially a pack of lies. |
|
|
12 October 2023 |
Petitioner filed Delhi
High Court WP Civil 13604/ 2023 and sought directions for the registration of
an FIR for forgery and for the filing of a forged document in Court in
respect of the document filed in Delhi High Court WP Crl 437/ 2018 as the
Threat Assessment Report. A copy of this forged document filed in WP Crl 437/
2018 and described as Threat Assessment Report is annexed hereto as Annexure
A-1. DCP New Delhi was
impleaded in Delhi High Court Writ Petition Civil 13604/ 2023 as Respondent
No. 3. WPC 13604/ 2023 seeks
the following relief.
|
|
|
17 October 2023 |
Notice was issued in
Delhi High Court Writ Petition Civil 13604/ 2023. Order dated 17 October
2023 is reproduced below.
|
|
|
19 Oct 2023 |
CM APPL. 54952/2023
(Status: P) filed by the Petitioner in WP Civil 13604/ 2023 seeking the
following relief.
|
|
|
12 Jan 2024 |
Devesh Kumar Mahla IPS
AGMUT 2012 was appointed as the DCP New Delhi in place of DCP Pranav Tayal. Devesh
Kumar Mahla was earlier DCP IGI Airport. DCP Pranav Tayal was shifted from
New Delhi to Special Branch. |
|
|
1 Feb 2024 4 April 2024 |
Delhi High Court WP
Civil 13604/ 2023 was listed for hearing on 1 February 2024 and on 4 April
2024 but DCP New Delhi Devesh Kumar Mahla (just like his predecessor Pranav
Tayal) failed to appear (either in
person or through an officer authorized to appear on his behalf) despite
issuance of notice and he has also failed to file a counter affidavit. |
|
|
3 May 2024 |
Order dated 1 June 2023
in WP Crl 437/ 2018 is still not complied with. The Petitioner
continues to be poisoned with chemical fumes and gases being deliberately
released into her rented premises in Rajokri. Fumes causing loss of
consciousness and incapacitation are also being released into the
Petitioner’s premises. This Petitioner is being subjected to this poisoning
every day and every night. |
2.
By failing to appear in Delhi High Court
WP Civil 13604/ 2023 on 1 February 2024 and on 4 April
2024, and by failing to file a counter affidavit for 16 weeks (period
starting from 12 January 2024), DCP New Delhi Devesh Kumar Mahla IPS AGMUT 2012
(has also like his predecessor Pranav Tayal) deliberately obstructed the court
proceedings and the administration of justice. He has deliberately disobeyed and
flouted the order of the Delhi High Court dated 17 October 2023. DCP Devesh Kumar Mahla’s wilful and contumacious disregard
and disobedience of the Court order issuing notice to DCP New Delhi and his
failure to appear for the Court hearings either personally or through an
Officer authorised to appear on his behalf and his failure to file a counter
affidavit amount to gross and wilful contempt of Court under the Contempt of
Courts Act. By these wilful acts of commission and omission, DCP Devesh Kumar
Mahla has intended to obstruct the administration of justice in WP Civil 13604/
2023 and to cover up the failure of Delhi Police to comply with the Court
Protection Order of 1 June 2023 (passed in WP Crl 437/ 2018). The impugned
acts/ omissions of DCP Devesh Kumar Mahla which are the subject matter of the
present petition are deliberate, perverse, malafide.
3.
The Petitioner continues to be poisoned
with chemical fumes and gases being deliberately released into her premises in
Rajokri. These acts constitute ongoing attempts on the life of the Petitioner.
4.
Meanwhile DCP Rohit Meena presently DCP
South West and the Commissioner of Police Mr Sanjay Arora are both in continued,
ongoing, and blatant violation of this Hon’ble Courts Order dated 1 June 2023
passed in WP Crl 437/2018. The Petitioner is facing a grave and immediate
threat to her life. The protection order of 1 June 2023 has not been and is not
being complied with. This continued and ongoing violation of the Court’s order
by DCP Rohit Meena and CP Sanjay Arora has placed the Petitioner’s life in the
gravest and most immediate danger. No protection was or has been provided to
the Petitioner at any time.
5.
The Respondent Devesh Kumar Mahla IPS
AGMUT 2012 is in accordance with prevailing practice and law including the
Contempt of Courts Act, being impleaded in his personal capacity.
6.
The Petitioner submits that the Supreme
Court has clarified and laid down the law in multiple binding decisions and
held that in Writ Petitions, State Respondents are duty bound to file detailed
counter affidavits setting out both facts and evidence in support of the facts claimed.
In this regard the Petitioner relies upon the following Supreme Court decisions
and a decision of the Calcutta High Court.
7.
In Ritesh Tewari & Anr vs State Of
U.P.& Ors 2010 (10) SCC 677 citing Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
Haryana & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2181, the Supreme Court stated the following:
|
19. It is a settled
proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce
sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and
in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to
entertain the pleas. In Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2181, this Court has observed as
under:- "In our opinion,
when a point, which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be
substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ
petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear
from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter
affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such
facts is not annexed to the writ petition or the counter-affidavit, as the
case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction
between a hearing under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a
counter- affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e. a plaint or written statement,
the facts and not the evidence are required to be pleaded. In a writ petition
or in the counter affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in
proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it." (Emphasis
added) (See also Vithal N. Shetti & Anr. Vs. Prakash N. Rudrakar &
Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 18; Devasahayam (Dead) by LRs. Vs. P. Savithramma &
Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 653; Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai
Prabhulal & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 252; and Rajasthan Pradesh V.S.
Sardarshahar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2221).” The present appeal
definitely does not contain pleadings required for proper adjudication of the
case. A party is bound to plead and prove the facts properly. In absence of
the same, the court should not entertain the point. |
8.
In Jasoda Devi Lakhotia & Ors vs The
State Of West Bengal & Ors, the Calcutta High Court stated in its judgment
dated 8 July, 2009
|
Since there is hardly
any scope for deciding a writ petition by trial on evidence, writ petitions
are decided traditionally on affidavits filed by the parties wherein they are
required not only to disclose the cause of action for filing such writ
petition in great details but also they are required to disclose their
respective evidence in their affidavits. This practice of trial of the writ
petition is rally a departure from the ordinary rule of law applicable to
trial of Civil Suits where the plaintiff is not required to disclose his
evidence in the plaint. This is the basic difference between the pleadings in
a Civil Suit and the pleadings in the writ petition. As such, direction was
given to the parties for filing their respective affidavits in this writ
petition. Though some of the respondents availed of such opportunity, but
majority of them did not initially file any affidavit in this proceeding, by
taking the risk of attraction of the consequences laid down in the provision
of Order 6 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code and/or the principles analogous
thereto, for not denying the averments made by the petitioners in the writ
petition by filing affidavit. It is pointed out by
Mr. Pal, learned Senior Counsel of the petitioner that though allegations of
mala fide, biasness and colourable exercise of power have been made
specifically and definitely against the respondent nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8,
but none of them filed any affidavit in this proceeding to deny and/or
controvert the allegations made by the petitioners against them in the writ
petition. Mr. Pal pointed out that the respondent no.5 viz. the 1st Land
Acquisition Collector, Kolkata filed his affidavit describing in the caption
that the said affidavit was filed on behalf of all the State respondents,
but, in fact, the said affidavit was not filed on behalf of all the State
respondents as it is rightly pointed out by Mr. Pal that the said respondent
has not disclosed his authority to file such affidavit on behalf of the other
State respondents, in the affidavit filed by him. As such, the affidavit
filed by the said respondent cannot be treated as an affidavit of the other
State respondents. Similarly, the affidavit which was filed by the
officer-in-charge of Bethune College, according to Mr. Pal, cannot be treated
as an affidavit of the respondent no.7 as the authority under which the said
affidavit was affirmed by the said deponent on behalf of the respondent no.7,
has not been disclosed in the said affidavit. |
9.
In Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar ...
vs U.O.I. & Ors AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2221, the Supreme Court stated the
following.
|
11. It is settled
proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce
sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and
in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to
entertain the pleas. In Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana &
Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2181, this Court has observed as under:- "In our opinion,
when a point, which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be
substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ
petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear
from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter
affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such
facts is not annexed to the writ petition or the counter-affidavit, as the
case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction
between a hearing under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a
counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e. a plaint or written statement,
the facts and not the evidence are required to be pleaded. In a writ petition
or in the counter affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in
proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it." 12. Similar view has
been reiterated in M/s. Larsen & Toubro 13. In M/s. Atul
Castings Ltd. Vs. Bawa Gurvachan Singh, AIR 2001 SC 1684, this Court observed
as under:- "The findings in
the absence of necessary pleadings and supporting evidence cannot be
sustained in law." 14. Similar view has
been reiterated in Vithal N. Shetti & Anr. Vs. Prakash N. Rudrakar &
Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 18; Devasahayam (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. P. Savithramma &
Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 653; and Sait Nagjee Purushottam & Co. Ltd. Vs.
Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 252. |
10.
The Supreme Court of India in City &
Industrial Devt.Corp vs Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala & Ors 2009 (1) SCC 168
stated as follows.
5. The complaint in the
writ petition was "that the CIDCO has been illegally and unauthorisedly
using the said land without acquiring the same or without paying any
compensation thereof." Reliance in this regard was placed upon internal
correspondence between CIDCO and Government of Maharashtra and the Collector,
Raigad. He is stated to have sent a representation dated 16.8.2004 to
Tehsildar requiring the Tehsildar to record his name as an "heir".
Having failed to receive any response from the concerned authorities he filed
the writ petition in the High Court of Bombay. The summum bonum of the case
set up by the first respondent in the writ petition was that the appellant
herein used the said land without acquiring the same depriving the Trust of
its ownership and possession of the land. 6. The appellant herein
filed its affidavit in reply opposing the admission of the writ petition in
the High Court. In the reply affidavit the appellant inter alia pleaded that
the writ petitioner has kept silent for more than 35 years and has chosen to file
the writ petition with inordinate delay which itself constitutes a ground to
dismiss the writ petition summarily. It was also pleaded that several
disputed questions of facts are involved which cannot be satisfactorily
adjudicated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In para 11 of the said reply affidavit the appellant took the plea that the
land is required for the Navi Mumbai Project. The land continued to be in its
possession for the last more than 35 years. However, having taken those pleas
it was also stated in the affidavit that the CIDCO "has come to know
from the Government letter that this is a private land and since it is a
private land, in possession of CIDCO and is required for the Navi Mumbai
Project, the CIDCO is requesting to (sic;) the Government to acquire it by
following due process of law." 7. The State of
Maharashtra and the Collector Raigad not only failed to file their reply
affidavits but their officers who were present in the court instructed the
learned A.G.P., who in turn made an oral statement which is para phrased by
the High Court in its judgment to the effect "the learned A.G.P. Mr.
Malvankar on instructions from Mrs. Revathi A. Gaikar, Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Panvel and Mr. M.N. Sanap, Tahsildar, Panvel who are
present in the court makes a statement that on consideration of the documents
in their possession that except for 93 Ars they have no documentary evidence
to show that rest of the land was acquired." 8. The High Court
relying upon the oral statement made by the learned A.G.P. and the reply
affidavit of the appellant disposed of the Writ Petition directing Collector,
Raigad to take steps to acquire the land by following due procedure and
complete the acquisition proceedings within one year of receiving the
requisition from the appellant. The question as to whether the first
respondent/writ petitioner was entitled to payment of any compensation from
the appellant for occupation of the land for over a period of 35 years was
left open to be agitated in appropriate proceedings. 9. Aggrieved by the
order passed by the High Court dated 07.02.2006 the appellant filed Special
Leave Petition (c) No. ..../2007 (CC 2080/2007) but withdrew the same with
the permission to move in review before the High Court. This Court vide order
dated 08.03.2007 dismissed the Special leave Petition as withdrawn.
Thereafter review petition was filed on various grounds which was also
dismissed vide order dated 10.08.2007. Hence these appeals by
special leave. 10. Shri Ranjit Kumar,
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strenuously
contended that the High Court ought to have summarily dismissed the writ
petition on the ground of laches and delay in as much as the respondent/writ
petitioner approached the court after a period of more than 35 years of
loosing possession of the land. It was also submitted that number of disputed
questions concerning the title of the land in question arise for
consideration which cannot be decided in a proceeding under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. The learned counsel further contended that the
first respondent is guilty of suppression of material facts which itself is
sufficient to dismiss the writ petition. It was submitted that the respondent
was not the owner of the land at any point of time and therefore no relief
could have been granted in the Writ Petition. 11. Shri R.F. Nariman,
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that
there is no dispute as regards the title of the respondent inasmuch as State
of Maharashtra and District Collector through their officers made a statement
in the open court that the land in question was not earlier acquired and the
same continued to be a private land. Shri Nariman also relied on the
averments made by the appellant herein in the reply affidavit opposing the
writ petition in the High Court stating that CIDCO has come to know from the
Government letter that the land is a private land and therefore, it had
requested the Government to acquire the land by following the due process of
law. 12. We have carefully
considered the rival submissions. 13. The High Court in
its decision appears to have mostly relied upon the oral statement made
through the learned A.G.P. and also some vague averments made by the
appellant in its reply affidavit and accordingly disposed of the Writ
Petition directing the acquisition of the land. The High Court did not
consider as to what is the effect of the said oral statement and the
averments made by the appellant in its reply affidavit. Whether such an oral
statement coupled with the averments made to the effect that the land is a
private land by themselves would amount to recognising the title of the
respondent? The fact remains that there is no whisper in the impugned order
that Sir Khan Bahadur Hormasji Bhiwandiwala Trust continued to be the true
and absolute owner of the land possessing valid and subsisting title as on
the date of the filing of the writ petition. Nor there is any finding by the
High Court as regards the nature of the land which is one of the most
important factor that may have a vital bearing on the issue as to the
entitlement of the respondent to get any relief in the writ petition. There
is also no finding that the writ petitioner who filed the Writ Petition as an
individual is the trustee of the said trust and thus entitled to prosecute
the litigation on behalf of the trust. The High Court did not consider as to
what is the effect of filing of the Writ Petition claiming to be a trustee
without impleading the trust as the petitioner. The High Court ignored the
statement made by the respondent in his Writ Petition about his
representation to Tehsildar requiring to record his name as an
"heir". How can an individual's name be recorded in the revenue
records to be an "heir" of a trust property? The High Court never
considered the effect of such a statement made by the writ petitioner in the
writ petition itself. The High Court also did not consider whether the
reliefs claimed could at all be granted in a public law remedy under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. 14. The High Court
obviously relied upon the oral statement purported to have been made by the
officers present in the court through the learned A.G.P. and considered the
same to be concession as regards the title/ownership of the land in question.
The appellant in its reply affidavit merely referred to a letter received by
it from the Government informing it the land in question to be a private
land. We fail to appreciate as to how the said statement and the averments
made in the reply affidavit amount to concession recognising the
title/ownership of the land in question in favour of the respondent. Such a
statement by itself cannot confer title in respect of immovable properties on
any individual. The courts are not relieved of their burden to weigh and evaluate
the relevancy and effect of such statements in adjudicating the lis between
the parties. 15. The Writ petition
was filed on 20th April, 2005 but whereas the petitioner executed the Deed of
Confirmation on 13th April, 2005 describing himself as vendor in favour of
Ms. Hemlata Bedi and Urmish Udani as the purchasers of the land in question.
The appellant in its review application filed in the High Court pointed out
that as on the date of the filing of the Writ Petition the first respondent
was not the owner of the land in as much as he executed the Deed of
Confirmation on 13th April, 2005 itself. When the appellant pointed out this
in its review application the High Court brushed aside the same and dismissed
the Review Petition relying on the explanation offered by the writ petitioner
that the writ petition was drafted much earlier to 13th April, 2005 for
filing in the court on 20th April, 2005. The fact remains that the respondent
never brought this fact on record during the pendency of the writ petition.
The High Court ought to have considered whether there was any suppression of
material facts from the court. The High Court did not consider the effect of
respondent describing himself as the vendor in the Confirmation Deed which is
not in tune with the recitals in the Deed of Conveyance dated 26th August,
1982. The High Court did not address to itself as to whether such complex and
disputed facts could be satisfactorily adjudicated in a proceeding under
Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court was carried away by the fact that
the relief had already been granted inasmuch as the acquisition proceedings
have commenced after the disposal of the Writ Petition. We are constrained to
express our reservation about the manner and approach of the High Court in
disposing of the Writ Petition and the Review Petition. 16. In our view, the
High Court ought to have examined the contents of Deed of Confirmation as
well as the Deed of Conveyance dated 26th August, 1982 before granting the
relief as prayed for by the respondent. It is plainly evident from the Deed
of Conveyance dated 26th August, 1982 that it was executed in favour of only
one person namely Ms. Hemlata Bedi as the purchaser whereas in the Deed of
Confirmation the name of Urmish Udani is also shown as the purchaser along
with Ms. Hemlata Bedi. It is not clear from the document as to how all of a
sudden Urmish Udani's name is shown as the purchaser. The circumstances may
lend credence to the submission made by learned senior counsel for the
appellant that Urmish Udani did not purchase the land but the litigation.
However, we do not wish to express any conclusive opinion on the question as
to whether the parties are indulging in any speculative litigation. These are
the aspects which ought to have been taken into consideration by the High
Court before granting relief to the respondent. In the absence of
finding on the vital issue noticed herein above no relief could have been
granted to the respondent. 17. Having regard to
the magnitude and complexity of the case the High Court in all fairness ought
to have directed the official respondents to file their detailed counter
affidavits and produce the entire material and the records in their
possession for its consideration. Be it noted the reply affidavit filed by
the appellant herein obviously was confined to opposing the admission of writ
petition. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage, of course
after issuing Rule as is evident from the order : "Rule. Heard
forthwith...." 18. We are constrained
to confess the case has left us perplexed. The stance adopted by the State of
Maharashtra and the District Collector is stranger than fiction. It is
difficult to discern as to why they remained silent spectators without
effectively participating in the proceedings before the Court. No explanation
is forth coming as to why they have chosen not to file their replies to the
Writ Petition in the High Court. However, in these appeals the State
Government as well as the appellant filed detailed affidavits disputing each
and every statement and assertion of the writ petitioner made in the Writ
Petition opposing grant of any relief whatsoever to the writ petitioner. But
even in this court the State of Maharashtra having filed its affidavit did
not participate in the proceedings and rendered any assistance in the matter. 19. It is well settled
and needs no restatement at our hands that under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the jurisdiction of a High Court to issue appropriate writs
particularly a writ of Mandamus is highly discretionary. The relief cannot be
claimed as of right. One of the grounds for refusing relief is that the
person approaching the High Court is guilty of unexplained delay and the
laches. Inordinate delay in moving the court for a Writ is an adequate ground
for refusing a Writ. The principle is that courts exercising public law
jurisdiction do not encourage agitation of stale claims and exhuming matters
where the rights of third parties may have accrued in the interregnum. 20. The appellant in
its reply opposing the admission of Writ Petition in clear and categorical
terms pleaded that the writ petitioner has kept silent for more than 35 years
and filed belated writ petition. It was asserted that on account of
inordinate delay and laches the writ petition suffers from legal infirmities
and therefore liable to be rejected in limine. The High Court did not record
any finding whatsoever and ignored such a plea of far reaching consequence. 21. As noticed
hereinabove the High Court obviously was impressed by the oral statement made
during the course of the hearing of the writ petition and some vague and self
defeating averments made in the affidavit filed by the appellant in the High
Court. 22. In our opinion, the
High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution is duty bound to take all the relevant facts and
circumstances into consideration and decide for itself even in the absence of
proper affidavits from the State and its instrumentalities as to whether any
case at all is made out requiring its interference on the basis of the
material made available on record. There is nothing like issuing an ex-parte
writ of Mandamus, order or direction in a public law remedy. Further, while
considering validity of impugned action or inaction the court will not
consider itself restricted to the pleadings of the State but would be free to
satisfy itself whether any case as such is made out by a person invoking its
extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court
while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty bound to consider
whether : (a) adjudication of
writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and
whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; (b) petition reveals
all material facts; (c) the petitioner has
any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute; (d) person invoking the
jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches; (e) ex facie barred by
any laws of Limitation; (f) grant of relief is
against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors. The court in
appropriate cases in its discretion may direct the State or its
instrumentalities as the case may be to file proper affidavits placing all
the relevant facts truly and accurately for the consideration of the court
and particularly in cases where public revenue and public interest are
involved. Such directions always are required to be complied with by the
State. No relief could be granted in a public law remedy as a matter of
course only on the ground that the State did not file its counter affidavit
opposing the writ petition. Further, empty and self-defeating affidavits or
statements of Government spokesmen by themselves do not form basis to grant
any relief to a person in a public remedy to which he is not otherwise
entitled to in law. 23. None of these
parameters have been kept in view by the High Court while disposing of the
Writ Petition and the Review Petition. 24. For the aforesaid
reasons, we set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter for fresh
consideration by the High Court on merits. Consequently, all the
notifications issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
including the award passed and the reference made to the Civil Court are set
aside. 25. During the course
of hearing of these appeals not only affidavits and additional affidavits but
also some documents which may have a vital bearing on the merits of the case
are placed on record. These affidavits and the documents filed into this court
shall form part of the writ proceedings. The matter requires fresh
consideration by the High Court. 26. Parties are given
liberty to supplement their respective pleadings if they so choose and file
additional documents, if any, which shall be received by the High Court for
its consideration. We may hasten to add that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case. All the contentions of both sides are
expressly kept open for their determination by the High Court. -27. It will not be
appropriate to dispose of the matter without one word about the conduct of
the State Government reflecting highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. We
express our grave concern as to the manner in which State has conducted in
this case. It is the constitutional obligation and duty of the State to place
true and relevant facts by filing proper affidavits enabling the court to
discharge its constitutional duties. The State and other authorities are
bound to produce the complete records relating to the case once Rule is
issued by the court. It is needless to remind the Governments that they do
not enjoy the same amount of discretion as that of a private party even in
the matter of conduct of litigation. The Governments do not enjoy any unlimited
discretion in this regard. No one need to remind the State that they
represent the collective will of the society. 28. The State in the
present case instead of filing its affidavit through higher officers of the
Government utilised the lower ones to make oral statements and that too
through its A.G.P. in the High Court. This malady requires immediate remedy.
We hope the Government shall conduct itself in a responsible manner and
assist the High Court by placing the true and relevant facts by filing a
proper affidavit and documents that may be available with it. We also hope
and trust that the Legal Advisors of the Government will display greater
competence and attention in drafting affidavits. Let not the fence eat
the grass. |
11.
The present petition is therefore being
filed in the interest of justice.
PRAYER
It
is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the aforesaid circumstances
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(i)
To issue notice of contempt to, to
convict, and to punish the Respondent Devesh Kumar Mahla IPS AGMUT 2012
presently posted as DCP New Delhi (since 12 January 2024) in accordance with
Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act by imposing fine and
imprisonment upon the Respondent for wilfully, intentionally, deliberately,
malafidely and perversely disobeying the
Order dated 17 October 2023 (in Delhi High Court Writ Petition Civil 13604/
2023) issuing notice to DCP New Delhi in WP Civil 13604/ 2023 and for his wilful
and contumacious disregard and disobedience of the Court order issuing notice
to DCP New Delhi and for his failure to appear for the Court hearings on 1
February 2024 and on 4 April 2024 either personally or through an Officer
authorised to appear on his behalf and for his failure to file a counter
affidavit for a period of now over 16 weeks (starting 12 January 2024), and
because by these gross and wilful contumacious acts/ omissions, DCP Devesh
Kumar Mahla has intended and attempted to obstruct the administration of
justice in WP Civil 13604/ 2023 in order to cover up the failure and refusal of
Delhi Police to comply with the Court Protection Order of 1 June 2023 (passed
in Delhi High Court WP Crl 437/ 2018) and to cover up the crimes in filing a
false and fraudulent Status Report in Delhi High Court WP Crl 437/ 2018 and in
filing a forged document as an alleged Police Threat Assessment Report;
(ii)
To pass such other orders and further
orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case.
FOR
WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
FILED BY:
SEEMA SAPRA
PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
FILED
ON: 3 May 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ORIGINAL CIVIL
JURISDICTION
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION
NO. OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO. 13604
OF 2023
IN
THE MATTER OF
SEEMA
SAPRA … Petitioner
Versus
Delhi
Police Commissioner & OTHERS
… Respondents
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Devesh
Kumar Mahla IPS AGMUT 2012
Presently
posted as DCP New Delhi
….CONTEMNOR/
RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I,
Seema Sapra, D/o Late A. R. Sapra, aged 52 years presently living on rent in
premises in Rajokri (Delhi) in Maa Ganga Vidyalaya Gali (opposite gali no. 3) and
being targeted, do hereby solemnly state and affirm as under:
1.
That I am the Petitioner and am familiar with the facts and circumstances of
the case and am competent and authorized to swear this Affidavit.
2.
That I have drafted, read and understood the accompanying Petition under the
Contempt of Courts Act and I state that the contents of the Petition are based
on my personal knowledge and on other sources which I believe to be true and
correct.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I,
the above-named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of the above Affidavit
are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing
material has been concealed there from.
Verified
at New Delhi on this 3rd day of May 2024.
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ORIGINAL CIVIL
JURISDICTION
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION
NO. OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO. 13604
OF 2023
IN
THE MATTER OF
SEEMA
SAPRA … Petitioner
Versus
Delhi
Police Commissioner & OTHERS
… Respondents
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Devesh
Kumar Mahla IPS AGMUT 2012
Presently
posted as DCP New Delhi
….CONTEMNOR/
RESPONDENT
MEMO OF PARTIES
Ms
Seema Sapra
R/o
rented premises in
Maa
Ganga Vidyalaya Lane,
Rajokri,
Delhi
…Petitioner
Versus
Devesh
Kumar Mahla IPS AGMUT 2012
Presently
posted as DCP New Delhi
Delhi
Police Headquarters
Jaisingh
Road, New Delhi …
Contemnor
Filed
by Petitioner in Person
Seema
Sapra
Rajokri,
Delhi
3
May 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment