Full Text
CONT.CAS(C) 651/2014 & CMAppl. 19074/2014
SMT. MOREATI & ORS Petitioner
Through: Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Adv.
Through:
SH. SHANKAR PRASAD Respondent Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Adv. for R-
1/DUSIB.
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel with Mr. Hem Kumar, Adv. for DDA.
Petitioner
Through: Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Adv.
Through: Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Adv. for R- 1/DUSIB. for DDA.
SH. SITARE & ORS ^
Through:
Petitioners Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Adv. 2015:DHC:10852
Through:
1/DUSIB. forDDA.
AND
SH. MUNNA SINGH & ORS
Through:
Petitioners Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Adv.
Through:
1/DUSIB. forDDA.
19.11.2015 Present contempt petitions have been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the
ORDER
(i) The agency owning the land underneath the JJC at Jasola, demolition action whereat was carried out on 09.06.2009, whether DDA or otherwise, is deemed to have made reference to the respondent No.3 DUSIB for determining the eligibility of the petitioners in all the four petitioners for re-location / rehabilitation in accordance with the
Policy of.the respondent No.2 GNCTD;
(ii) The respondent No.3 DUSIB to accordingly so determine the eligibility ofthe petitioners;
(Hi) The petitioners to appear before the respondent No. 3
DUSIB along with all their documents in this regard, in the first instance on 20.10.2011 and thereafter on such further dates as may be necessary;
(iv) The respondent No.3 DUSIB to make endeavour to complete the enquiry / determination within one year thereof;
(v) The department of Food & Civil Supplies and other concerned departments from whom respondent No.3
DUSIB may need to verify to determine the eligibility of the petitioners, are directed to supply all information sought to respondent No.3 DUSIB and to render other assistance ifany sought;
(vi) Ifthe petitioners or any ofthem are so found eligible, they be re-located / re-habilitated in .accordance with the
Policy. However, the petitioners or such of them who are not found eligible, if not found eligible, shall have remedies in law."
Subsequently even review petitions were dismissed by the learned
Single Judge.
Since in the present batch of petitions, it was stated that DUSIB had not determined the eligibility of the petitioners for relocation/rehabilitation in accordancewith the policy ofthe GNCTD, notices were issued.
In response to the said notices, DUSIB has filed a Status Report. The relevant portion of the Status reportis reproduced below:-
"5. That however, as now things turn out that, as a matter of fact, the Petitioner was never dispossessed. As such the Petitioner had made deliberate false statement about their dispossession. The falsity of the allegations of the Petitioner about his/her dispossession is clearly revealed the contents ofthe C.M. No. 19074/2014 moved in the instant Contempt Petition. Thefalsity ofthe averments made by the Petitioner is also fortified in view of their representation which has been received in the office of the
Director (SUR) ofDUSIB on 03.03.2015. A copy ofthesaid representation is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-Rl/1.
9. That on a perusal of the aforesaid, it is evident that, even as per the Petitioner, she/he is still residing in his/her Jhuggiefor the last more than 30years. xxxx xxxx xxxx
18. That since the Petitioner has not been disposed and, rather, is still living in her Jhussi and also that the Petitioner has failed to furnish the requisite documents, the eligibility ofthe Petitioner cann't be determined. In view of the aforesaid, there is no deliberate or wilful violation of order ofthis Hon 'ble Court. Hence, the notice issued to the deponent may kindly be discharged. " (emphasis supplied) Till today no response has been filed by the petifioners. Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee states that none ofthe petitioners have contacted him. A perusal of the file reveals that in the present petitions, the petitioners had filed applications seeking stay of demolition of their properties on 18"^ November, 2014 through aprivate counsel. From the status report filed byDUSIB as well as the applications filed through private counsel, it is apparent that the petitioners have made false averments not only in the present contempt petitions but also in their writ petitions inasmuch asthey have never been dispossessed and are residing for the last 30 years at the sameplace. This Court is also in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for DUSIB that since the petitioners have not been dispossessed, there is no question of their rehabilitation. Accordingly, present contempt petitions are dismissed. This Courtis constrained to observe that the offices of the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee have been misused by the present petitioners. Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to be morevigilantin future and to screen the casesmore carefully. IL MANM0HSN, J NOVEMBER 19, 2015 nk