New Rise Foundation Regd. Charitable Trust Vs Municipal Corporation Delhi and Ors (Delhi High Court)
The petitioner’s contention is that an unauthorised/ illegal structure is in existence in Neb Sarai, Delhi admeasuring 600 sq. yards. It has been stated that the petitioner has made various representations to various authorities, however, the respondents in the present petition have not taken any steps in respect of unauthorised/ illegal structure and, therefore, the present PIL has been filed.
Learned Counsel for the MCD, at the outset, has informed this Court that it is nobody’s case that the MCD is not taking any action against the unauthorised constructions and as and when any information concerning unauthorised/ illegal constructions is brought to their notice, they are taking action with quite promptitude. He has stated before this Court that the Petitioner NGO is, in fact, involved in blackmailing the builders and other people and the noble object for which the NGO was formed is not being looked into by the NGO at all, except blackmailing others. He has further stated that the same writ petitioner represented by the same counsel has earlier also filed a Writ Petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 9150/2022 and when the matter was taken up on 02.06.2022, the Division Bench was inclined to impose cost as it was a frivolous Writ Petition. This Bench thereafter, permitted the writ petitioner to withdraw the Writ Petition and it was dismissed as withdrawn.
It is very unfortunate that the noble forum of PIL is now being used for blackmailing the citizens. This is not a PIL at all. It is, in fact, a litigation based upon certain photographs resulting in blackmailing type of litigation.
It has been held that when a party approaches a Court, he must place all facts before the Court without any reservation and in case there is suppression of material facts, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed without entering into the merits of the matter.
In the present case, the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the factum of filing of the earlier writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 9150/2022 which was in respect of the same property, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
The petitioner NGO has certainly not come with clean hands. The attempt on the part of the petitioner is nothing but an attempt to blackmail others, and therefore, the petitioner suppressed the fact of filing of the earlier petition. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed in the light of the aforesaid judgment.
Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that the forum of approaching Courts by way of newly developed Doctrine of Public Interest Litigation should not be permitted to be abused, and in the considered opinion of this Court, the petition is nothing but sheer abuse of the Doctrine of Public Interest Litigation, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the present petition is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed at admission stage itself with costs of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) to be paid to the Army War Widows Fund within a period of 30 days from today.
Case Title: NEW RISE FOUNDATION REGD. CHARITABLE TRUST v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DELHI AND ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 748
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner before this Court – New Rise Foundation Regd. Charitable Trust represented through Mr. Sumit Sejwal, Managing Trustee, has filed the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) stating that the petitioner is a charitable trust which provides shelter to orphan children. It provides food to poor, handicapped and other downtrodden people.
2. The petitioner’s contention is that an unauthorised/ illegal structure is in existence in Neb Sarai, Delhi admeasuring 600 sq. yards. It has been stated that the petitioner has made various representations to various authorities, however, the respondents in the present petition have not taken any steps in respect of unauthorised/ illegal structure and, therefore, the present PIL has been filed.
3. Learned Counsel for the MCD, at the outset, has informed this Court that it is nobody’s case that the MCD is not taking any action against the unauthorised constructions and as and when any information concerning unauthorised/ illegal constructions is brought to their notice, they are taking action with quite promptitude. He has stated before this Court that the Petitioner NGO is, in fact, involved in blackmailing the builders and other people and the noble object for which the NGO was formed is not being looked into by the NGO at all, except blackmailing others. He has further stated that the same writ petitioner represented by the same counsel has earlier also filed a Writ Petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 9150/2022 and when the matter was taken up on 02.06.2022, the Division Bench was inclined to impose cost as it was a frivolous Writ Petition. This Bench thereafter, permitted the writ petitioner to withdraw the Writ Petition and it was dismissed as withdrawn. The order dated 02.06.2022 is reproduced as under:
“After some arguments, learned counsel for petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition.
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner when confronted with the aforesaid situation has, in open Court, admitted that the property involved in the present Writ Petition was certainly the property involved in the earlier Public Interest Writ Petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 9150/2022 and he has not mentioned the factum of filing of the earlier Writ Petition in the present PIL.
5. It is very unfortunate that the noble forum of PIL is now being used for blackmailing the citizens. This is not a PIL at all. It is, in fact, a litigation based upon certain photographs resulting in blackmailing type of litigation.
6. The suppression of facts has been admitted before this Court and it is a settled proposition of law that a person who does not comes with clean hands and suppresses material facts is not entitled for any relief whatsoever. The Petitioner otherwise also wants a roving enquiry to be done based upon some photographs and there is no other evidence brought on record to arrive at a conclusion that the structure in question is an unauthorised construction.
