Full Text
Date of Decision: 6th May, 2013
LT. COL. RETD. SARVADAMAN SINGH OBEROI ..... Petitioner
Through : Petitioner in person.
ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ORS. .... Respondents
Through : None.
W.P.(Crl.) No.588/2013
JUDGMENT
1. In Greek mythology, phoenix is a long lived bird that is cyclically regenerated or reborn. Associated with the sun, the phoenix obtains new life by arising from the ashes of its predecessor.
2. The phoenix has risen again.
3. This is the fifth round of litigation in the High Court in respect of litigation, which germinated more than two decades ago, over Flat No.C- 1/1489, Vasant Kunj, DDA Flats, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as flat) allotted to Sh.Sher Singh. The possession of the said flat was given 2013:DHC:2281 by DDA to Mr.H.L.Dhawan in the year 1989 on the basis of Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed by Sh.Sher Singh (the allottee) in favour of Mr.H.L.Dhawan.
4. Sh.Sher Singh expired in the year 2008 and till his death, there were numerous rounds of litigation and complaints to various Courts and authorities. The petitioner is claiming interest in the said flat on the basis of registered will dated 28.06.1999 executed in his favour by Sh.Sher Singh. The petitioner is now fighting this lone battle not only by claiming interest in the flat but also in exercise of his right as concerned citizen of the country to fight for justice. Despite repeatedly losing before the High Court and Supreme Court, the undying spirit of a soldier in Lt.Col.(Retd.)Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi is not letting him give up. Although the writ petition contains the detailed history of the litigation in respect of the said flat, the basic issue which is being agitated before this Court is the fraud played upon the Court by some imposter personating himself as Sher Singh while filing C.W.P. No.5365/1993. The petitioner prays for initiation of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC against known/unknown persons involved in playing fraud on the Court by filing CWP No.5365/1993 as well SLP No.19369/1994 before the Supreme Court.
5. In order to understand the grievance of the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the previous litigations filed in this Court by Sh.Sher Singh as well the present petitioner Lt.Col.(Retd.)Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi. To appreciate the contentions of the petitioner, who is conducting this case in person, record of previous litigations in respect of the flat has been requisitioned from the Registry for perusal by this Court.
(I) W.P.C. No.699/1990
6. The first round of litigation in respect of the flat was by filing W.P.C. No.699/1990 by Sh.Sher Singh against Vice Chairman, DDA and three other officers of DDA. The prayer made in the said writ petition was for issuance of writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to deliver the possession of the flat No. Flat No.C-1/1489, Vasant Kunj, DDA Flats, New Delhi or any other flat in Vasant Kunj to the petitioner.
7. The response of the DDA was that the possession has been handed over to the authorised representative of the petitioner. DDA also filed copy of the plaint filed before the lower Court in respect of Flat No.C- 1/1489, Vasant Kunj, DDA Flats, New Delhi as per which the said flat had been sold by Sh.Sher Singh to Smt.Krishna Dhawan, W/o Sh.H.L.Dhawan by executing the documents known in common parlance as Power of Attorney sale.
8. The above writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.09.1991 which is as under:- „C.W.699/90 This petition discloses highly disputed questions of facts for which writ petition is not a remedy. If so advised, the petitioner may file a suit.‟
9. SLP No.16436/1991 preferred against the order dated 24.09.1991, was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
(II) C.W.P. No.5365/1993
10. Another Writ Petition No.5365/1993 titled as Sher Singh vs. Vice Chairman, DDA was filed wherein the prayer made was to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to refund the entire amount of the cost of the flat with interest at market rate to the petitioner. Herein also, the response of DDA was identical. The order dated 15.09.1994 passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition was to the effect:- „CW.5365/93 & CM 1224/94 The petition involves disputed question of facts which cannot appropriately be gone into in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly, dismissed.‟
11. SLP No.19369/1994 allegedly preferred by some imposter before the Supreme Court against the order dated 15.09.1994, was also dismissed.
12. The petitioner is not questioning the filing of C.W.P.No.699/1990 and SLP No.16436/1991 by Sher Singh. Only in respect of C.W.P.No.5365/1993 and SLP No.19369/1994, it has been alleged that it was filed by some other person impersonating himself as Sher Singh thereby playing fraud on the Court and thus requiring action against him in accordance with the provisions of Section 340 CrPC.
(III) C.W.P. No.7438/2000
13. Thereafter C.W.P. No.7438/2000 was filed by Sh.Sher Singh impleading 58 respondents (as per memo of parties), however, the proceedings dated 08.12.2000 in C.W.P. No.7438/2000 record the submissions made by the petitioner, who appeared in person before the Court, as as under:- ‘Petitioner submits that as far as his grievance regarding investigation of criminal offence is concerned and the allegations of forgery, fabrication of documents and other offences under the Indian Penal Code, he would delete these references from the petition. Petitioner further states that he would delete from the present writ petition the several respondents numbering 60, who have been arrayed as respondents without prejudice to his rights to take action against them as admissible at law. He further states that he would confine his relief in the writ petition to the possession of the flat. Let the petitioner file amended writ petition as desired by him. Let the matter be listed as and when the amended petition is filed.‟
14. C.W.P. No.7438/2000 was dismissed on 15.07.2000. Subsequent application seeking clarifications and review were also dismissed.
(IV) Crl.M.C. No.282/2013
15. Thereafter petitioner filed Crl.M.C. No.282/2013 which was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 31.01.2013. Subsequent Crl.M.A. No.2759/2013 praying for recalling of the order dated 31.01.2013 was also dismissed.
(V) W.P.(Crl.) No.588/2013
16. After disposal of Crl.M.C. No.282/2013, the petitioner has filed this W.P.(Crl.) No.588/2013 with the following prayer:- „(a) Writ of certiorari may kindly issue, in the interests of upholding the majesty of law, directing the designated court of jurisdiction under Section 340 CrPC, in the matter, for action as may be considered appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the matter of fraud played upon this Court in CWP 5365/93, and (b)Writ of certiorari may kindly issue, in the interests of upholding the majesty of law, directing the designated court of jurisdiction under Section 340 CrPC, in the matter, for action as may be considered appropriate in the facts & circumstances of the matter of fraud played upon this court in FAO (OS) 140 of 2000 (2003 (71) DRJ 470 (DB) and FAO(OS) 140 of 2000 (2001 (57) DRJ 345 (DB)).‟
17. On perusal of the writ petition and being pointed out to the petitioner that many irrelevant facts have been incorporated by the petitioner to give the background/history and most of them are not open to challenge now, the petitioner sought liberty to summarise the facts for purpose of disposal of this petition. Taking note that the petitioner, who is a retired Army Officer and conducting this case in person, he was permitted to do so by summarising the facts relevant for the purpose of relief claimed in this writ petition. The petitioner tried to place on record the facts and his grievance alongwith the case law.
18. Petitioner has been heard at length. During course of hearing, his main grievance was that in C.W.P. No.5365/1993 the counsel did not file the vakalatnama and in subsequent writ petition filed in the year 2000, Sh. Sher Singh denied having filed the said writ petition. He submitted that so far as averments made in respect of events regarding which legal remedy has already been availed and attained finality, he would be satisfied if his grievance is redressed to the extent that the complaints made by Sh.Sher Singh on 30.08.2000 and by his counsel on 01.12.2002 are disposed of.
19. In respect of prayer (b), the petitioner submitted that in para 74 of the petition, he has stated that while doing research of this case, he came across two orders in I.A. No.9004/98 by two different Benches on two different dates. The petitioner submitted that he has given the citation in prayer (b) just as a concerned citizen to draw the attention of this Court that such type of practice should not be permitted and it was the duty of the Counsel to inform the Court that I.A. No.9004/1998 had already been disposed of on 20.10.2000, thus could not have been again disposed of in March, 2003 by another Division Bench.
20. On being questioned by the Court as to whether he has checked the record to ascertain in what circumstances I.A. No.9004/1998 again came for disposal before another Division Bench, he pleaded ignorance.
21. The petitioner is claiming ignorance about the circumstances in which hotly contested restoration application i.e. I.A. No.9004/1998 earlier disposed of by Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr.Justice Devinder Gupta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, again came up for disposal before the Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Ms.Justice Usha Mehra and Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog i.e. whether it was on review/recalling of the previous order or any other circumstance. The record of FAO(OS) No.140/2000 revealed that on the basis of order dated 28.09.2001, review application bearing RA No.1479/2001 was allowed and judgment dated 20.10.2000 in FAO(OS) No.140/2000 was recalled. There is hardly any necessity to further deliberate on this aspect as the petitioner is not pressing the prayer (b) in the writ petition.
22. On 03.05.2012, during hearing in the Court, in respect of prayer (a) made in the petition, the petitioner made prayer (hand written) to the following effect:- „I limit my prayer to pages 163-165 of WP(Crl).588/2013 in Civil (W.P.) 5365/93 apparently filed by imposter and committing prima facie offence u/s 340 CrPC (Annexure P-9 colly.)” (Annexure P-9 is at Pages No.163 to 165 of W.P.(Crl.) No.588/2013. At page 163, there is a copy of complaint dated 30.08.2000 made by Sher Singh and at pages 164-165, there is a copy of complaint dated 01.02.2012 made by Mr.A.K.Bakshi, Adv.)
23. The petitioner submitted that from the beginning, Sher Singh had been claiming that C.W.P. No.5365/1993 was not filed by him and a fraud was played upon the Court by someone. Thus justice demands that such imposter must be punished by the Court by resorting to the provisions of Section 340 CrPC and this Court may give directions for disposal of the two complaints (Annexure P-9) pending for over a decade.
24. Once the petitioner limited his prayer to above extent, efforts were made to find out the fate of the complaint referred to above. Record of Writ Petition upto the year 2000 was also perused. Success could be achieved only while going through C.P.W. No.7438/2000. This file contains the original complaint dated 01.12.2002 sent through speed post to Hon’ble The Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi (on Administrative Side). The subject of the complaint is ‘Request for final order on complaint dated 30.08.2000’. Alongwith the complaint, copy of complaint dated 30.08.2000 addressed to Registrar, High Court of Delhi is also enclosed.
25. Since the petitioner is restricting his prayer only in respect of above mentioned two complaints for the purpose of seeking directions from this Court to initiate action under Section 340 CrPC in respect of fraud played upon this Court in C.W.P. No.5365/1993, it becomes necessary to extract the two complaints. The complaint (copy) dated 30.08.2000 is as under:- “FROM Shri SHER SINGH s/o Ram Singh, No. 112A, Pkt-C, MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI-110091 Tel: 2478555 To THE REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF DELHI NEW DELHI-110003 CWP No.5365/93 FILED BY PERSON(S) IMPERSONATING AS SHRI SHER SINGH IN SHER SINGH vs DDA. Sir, During examination of D.D.A. Files, as per directions of Sh.DAYA PRAKASH, M.M., Patiala House Courts, in Cr.Complaint No.5012/94 it was found that four cases have been filed by person(s) impersonating me in the Supreme Court of India, High Court of Delhi, Distt. Forum-II, New Delhi (IN PERSON) and State Commission (CDRC), Delhi (IN PERSON) during 1993- 96 (Next DOH 6.9.2000) The details of the cases are at Serials 5, 6, 8 and 9 of Annexure enclosed. It is requested that the guilty person(s) who have gravely abused the due process be identified and punished to avoid recurrence of such malpractices.
DETAILS OF IMPERSONATION Ser 5 CWP No.5365/93 Decided on 15-9-94. “SHER SINGH vs. DDA” Shri P.S. Madhan, Mr.K.K.Khetan, Advs. for petitioner Mr.SK Kaul, Mr.NK Kaul, Mr.Nitin TambwekarAdvs for Respondents. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (SHER SINGH) 30-8-2000 Annx. Encl Complete Details of Cases in R/o C-1/1489 VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI” The complaint dated 01.12.2002 which seems to be a reminder to earlier complaint reads as under:- “To, The Hon‟ble Chief Justice (On Administrative Side) High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (Through Registrar General, High Court of Delhi) Sir, (1) It is most respectfully submitted that my client Shri Sher Singh states that he had submitted a complaint dated 30-08-2000 to Registrar High Court of Delhi, wherein my client had reported that some person(s) had impersonated him and had filed C.W.P.No.5365/93 titled „Sher Singh vs. DDA‟. A copy of complaint dated 30-08-2000 is Annexure I. (2) My client states that the said C.W.P. 5365/93 was dismissed on 15-9-94 against which order, someone impersonating as Sher Singh, had filed S.L.P.No.19369/94 which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 1-5-95. (3) My client states that he learnt about the said forgery/impersonation sometimes early 2000, during the course of proceedings of criminal case filed by my client before the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, and when the DDA brought case record file in the said criminal case. (4) My client states that he had applied for a DDA flat in 1982 and in 1989 he was allotted DDA flat no.C-1/1489, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. However, the possession of the said flat was illegally given by the DDA to one Mr.H.L. Dhawan who has since expired but his son and grandson are in illegal possession of the flat at present. (5) My client states that he had filed C.W.P.699/90 in High Court of Delhi which was disposed of on 24-9-91. (6) My client states that based on new facts he had filed C.W.P. 7438/2000 in High Court of Delhi which was dismissed on 15-7-2002. In the said C.W.P. my client (the petitioner) had stated at paras 35 and 38 of the Amended Writ Petition (read with Annexure P-24) that some impostor had filed C.W.P. 5365/93. (7) My client states that the said C.W.P. 7438/2000 was dismissed on 15-07- 2002 and in the order it was stated that the C.W.P. 5365/93 had been dismissed earlier and S.L.P. had also been dismissed, thereby subjecting my client to adverse inference on the basis of C.W.P.5365/93 and S.L.P. which had NOT been filed by my client. (8) My client states that he is suffering great injustice due to non-availability of final report by the Hon‟ble Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi on the Complaint dated 30-08-2000 submitted by my client. (9) My client therefore submits that your kind self (on Administrative Side) may be pleased to pass final order on the complaint of my client dated 30-08- 2000, on urgent basis to enable my client to proceed further in the dismissed C.W.P.7438/2000 by way of filing L.P.A./S.L.P. sd/- Sher Singh (Complainant) Petitioner in C.W.P.7438/2000 sd/- Date: 1.12.2002 A.K.BAKSHI Place: New Delhi ADVOCATE”
26. The complaints were examined at appropriate levels and noting dated 15.01.2003 by the Registrar is to the following effect which was put up before Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice for approval:- „In view of orders on judicial side, no further action is called for in the matter and the complaint might, if approved, be filed.‟
27. The above complaints have been ordered to be filed on 15.01.2003 on the basis of report submitted by Registrar General and approved by Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice.
28. The complaints dated 30.08.2000 and 01.12.2002 made by/on behalf of Sh.Sher Singh were on the administrative side. To invoke the provision of Section 340 CrPC, the proceedings must be before the Court and not before an officer in his administrative/executive capacity. The complaint can be filed only by a Court acting in judicial capacity. Since the complaint dated 30.08.2000 addressed to Registrar and complaint dated 01.12.2002 addressed to Hon’ble The Chief Justice are specifically invoking the powers in their respective administrative capacity, in any circumstance, the petitioner cannot seek the relief under the provisions of Section 340 CrPC.
29. Since the grievance of the petitioner that the complaints dated 30.08.2000 and 01.12.2002 have not been disposed of by the Registrar and Hon’ble The Chief Justice for over a decade, no longer survives for the reason that the complaints stand disposed of on 15.01.2003, no relief can be granted by this Court in W.P.(Crl.) No.588/2013.
30. W.P.(Crl.) No.588/2013 is hereby dismissed. All pending applications are also dismissed.
31. No costs.
PRATIBHA RANI, J May 06, 2013 „st‟