CA Nandlal Kedia v. Lt. Governor and Ors.

1. Not only the suit was wholly frivolous but this appeal is also wholly frivolous. The appeal is argued on behalf of the appellant by a counsel who is appointed by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. The subject suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking application of Section 145 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978. The appellant/plaintiff claims that the Local Commissioner appointed by a civil court in Bhiwani, Haryana alongwith the police wrongly broke upon the locks of his office. 2014:DHC:2098

2. The admitted facts however are that the appellant was in litigation with his brother in the courts at Bhiwani in a partition suit and in that suit after passing of the preliminary decree, a Local Commissioner was appointed to suggest the mode of partition including by measuring the suit property. Pursuant to the order of the civil court at Bhiwani, Local Commissioner took police help and broke upon the locks of the property in possession of the appellant/plaintiff and thereafter conducted the Local Commissioner proceedings. These proceedings are challenged by means of the subject suit under Section 145 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.

3. Section 145 of the Delhi Police Act reads as under:- “Section 145. Persons interested may seek to annul, reverse or alter any rule or order.-(1) In the case of any rule or order made by the Administrator under an authority conferred by this Act and requiring the public or a particular class of persons to perform some duty or act and requiring the public or a particular class of persons to perform some duty or act, or to conduct or order themselves for any person interested to apply to the Administrator by a memorial to annul, reverse, or alter the rule or order aforesaid on the ground of its being unlawful, oppressive or unreasonable. (2) After such an application as aforesaid and rejection thereof wholly or in part or after the lapse of four months without an answer to such application or a decision thereon published by the Administrator, it shall be competent for the person interested and deeming the rule or order to be contrary to law to institute a suit in the principal civil court of original jurisdiction against the Administrator for a declaration that the rule or order is unlawful either wholly or in part. (3) Where in any suit instituted under sub-section (2) or on appeal therefrom, the court adjudges a rule or order to the unlawful, the rule or order shall be annulled or so altered as to make it conformable to law.”

4. It is clear that ex facie this provision does not apply because by this provision an action of the Lieutenant Governor can be challenged by which a general rule or notification is issued. In this case, no general rule or notification of the Lieutenant Governor is challenged. In any case, the Local Commissioner’s action was pursuant to the court order and in such case there cannot by any illegality committed by the Local Commissioner or by the police.

5. Only for the reason that the appellant is represented through an Advocate appointed by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, I am therefore not imposing any costs while dismissing this frivolous appeal, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

APRIL 22, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne