Full Judgement
Delhi High Court
Balaji Ram Leela Committee vs Delhi Development Authority on 18 October, 2023
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 18.10.2023
+ W.P.(C) 11978/2023
BALAJI RAM LEELA COMMITTEE ..... PETITIONER
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... RESPONDENT
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gaurav Seth, Mr. Pulkit Sikka and Mr. Navjot Kwatra, Advs.
For the Respondent: Ms. Manika Tripathy, Standing Counsel with Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik and Ms. Aastha Agnihotri, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 12337/2023 & CM No. 52416/2023
SHREE HANUMANT DHARMIK RAMLEELA
COMMITTEE REGD & ANR. ..... PETITIONERS
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY& ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manik Dogra, Mr Piyush Gupta & Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advs.
For the Respondent: Ms. Manika Tripathy, SC for DDA with Mr. Chirantan Saha & Ms. Aastha Agnihotri, Advocates for/DDA. Mr. Gaurav Seth, Ms. Akansha Mehra, Mr. Pulkit Sikka & Mr. Vipin Malik, Advocates for R-4 & 5/Committees.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11978/2023 & Connected matter Page 1 of 12 Digitally Signed By:SHEHROZ ALAM Signing Date:20.10.2023 22:38:59 TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.:
CM No.46977/2023 and CM No.48581/2023 [Applications seeking interim relief]
1. The Petitioners in the present matters approached this Court seeking interim directions with respect to booking permission of open space bearing Plot No. 8A in CBD, Shahdara, Delhi-110032, admeasuring about 10,000 sq. mtrs. [hereinafter referred to as "Plot 8A"]. It is the separate contention of both the Petitioners that each of them is entitled to use Plot 8A to conduct Ramleela festivities.
2. It has been contended by the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 11978/2023, Balaji Ram Leela Committee [hereinafter referred to as "Balaji"] that the permission for use of Plot 8A was granted pursuant to a booking made by Balaji on 15.05.2023, which culminated into permission from the Respondent/DDA in terms of Letter No. F1(21)CE /EZ/ Booking/2023/DDA/109 dated 27.06.2023, for the period from 11.09.2023 to 25.10.2023 [hereinafter referred to as "27.06.2023 Communication"].
3. On the other hand, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 12337/2023, Shree Hanumant Dharmik Ramleela Committee (Regd.) [hereinafter referred to as "Hanumant"] relies on the Office Order dated 07.09.2023 of the Respondent/DDA and on serial no. 52 of the list dated 02.08.2023 released by the Delhi Dharmik Mahasangh [hereinafter referred to as "Mahasangh"] to submit that in terms of the list dated 02.08.2023, Hanumant is entitled to Plot 8A for these Ramleela festivities.
4. Balaji approached this Court impugning letter No. F1(21)/CE/EZ/Booking/2023/DDA/226 dated 08.09.2023 issued by DDA
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11978/2023 & Connected matter Page 2 of 12 Digitally Signed By:SHEHROZ ALAM Signing Date:20.10.2023 22:38:59 [hereinafter referred to as "08.09.2023 letter"] which directed cancellation of the booking of Plot 8A in favour of Balaji. 4.1 By its order dated 12.09.2023, this Court had passed directions staying the operation of the 08.09.2023 letter.
5. This led to Hanumant rushing to the Court contending that Plot 8A was allotted to Hanumant and in terms of the directions issued under the Office Order of Respondent No.1/DDA dated 07.09.2023 [hereinafter referred to as the "Office Order of 07.09.2023"] and relying on the 02.08.2023 list circulated by Mahasangh. It was contended by Hanumant that on 02.08.2023, Mahasangh has circulated a communication to its members which sets out a list of Ramleela Committees alongwith their booking sites and dates of performances [hereinafter referred to as the "02.08.2023 Committee List"].
5.1 Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Hanumant has vehemently contended that Balaji concealed the fact that there was the 02.08.2023 Committee List and that allotment pursuant thereto had been made in favour of Hanumant. Thus, despite having the knowledge of such lists, Balaji had obtained interim directions from this Court, which interim directions were sought to be set aside by Hanumant. 5.2 By its Order dated 19.09.2023, this Court directed that no further steps shall be taken by any of the parties with respect to the booking of Plot 8A.
6. Both these matters were heard together and given the urgency, the parties were directed to file their respective Short-Affidavits. 6.1 Respondent/DDA filed the following Short-affidavits: -
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11978/2023 & Connected matter Page 3 of 12
Digitally Signed By:SHEHROZ ALAM Signing Date:20.10.2023 22:38:59
(i) Affidavit dated 25.09.2023 and 13.10.2023 in W.P.(C) 12337/2023;
(ii) Affidavit dated 25.09.2023 in W.P.(C) 11978/2023. 6.2 Mahasangh entered appearance and filed its affidavit dated 26.09.2023.
6.3 An affidavit was also filed by Balaji dated 20.09.2023, in W.P.(C) 12337/2023 setting forth that there had been no concealment before this Court.
6.4 Learned Counsel for Respondent/Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi entered appearance and filed a letter dated 27.09.2023 from the office of Respondent/Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi to submit that they shall adopt the affidavit filed by the Respondent/DDA.
7. This Court had initially directed that the parties may attempt to amicably resolve their disputes. However, since there was no resolution, the interim Applications filed by both Hanumant and Balaji were taken up for hearing and disposal.
8. Learned Counsel for Hanumant submitted that the Authorised Signatory of Balaji is also the Vice President of the Mahasangh and that as such, he was in the full know-how of the 02.08.2023 Committee List. This fact was concealed from this Court in the Petition filed by Balaji. Hence, Balaji is not entitled to any relief from this Court. 8.1 It was further contended, that in any event, the 27.06.2023 Communication provided that the permission accorded is "subject to the Mahasangh list". Since Plot 8A was allotted to Hanumant in the 02.08.2023 Committee List, the allotment to Balaji stood automatically
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11978/2023 & Connected matter Page 4 of 12 Digitally Signed By:SHEHROZ ALAM Signing Date:20.10.2023 22:38:59 cancelled. Reliance was placed on Clause 22 of the 27.06.2023 Communication which reads as follows :-
"22. This permission letter subjected to Mahasangh List order issued by Hon'ble LG. If this plot 8-A allotted to other religious society then this permission letter may be treated as cancelled".
8.2 It was also submitted that Balaji's booking could not be said to be a concluded contract with Respondent/DDA and was at best a contingent contract, contingent upon its name appearing in the Mahasangh list.
9. The Respondent/DDA in its Affidavits made the following submissions:
(i) A meeting was held on 31.08.2023, chaired by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, in which it was decided that sites/plots for hosting Ramleela would be booked as per the list provided the Mahasangh;
(ii) The communication of the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor was in terms of a Note No.5/N dated 04.09.2023 recorded in File No. ENG/CEDZ/0032/SEHQ/EA2B-O/O SE(E)-DWK. It is in pursuance of this communication that Office Order of 07.09.2023 was issued by Respondent/DDA.
(iii) Plot 8A was initially allotted to Balaji on 27.06.2023.
However, since the 02.08.2023 Committee List contained the name of Hanumant for the Plot 8A booking, this booking was cancelled on 08.09.2023 by Respondent/DDA;
(iv) On 12.09.2023, Mahasangh resubmitted its booking list for the year 2023 and as per that list, Plot 8A was allotted to Balaji;
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11978/2023 & Connected matter Page 5 of 12
Digitally Signed By:SHEHROZ ALAM Signing Date:20.10.2023 22:38:59
(v) Hanumant was never allotted Plot 8A, hence, it is not prejudiced by the actions of the Respondent/DDA;
10. The Mahasangh, by its Affidavit dated 26.09.2023 contended as follows :-
(i) Hanumant became a member of the Mahasangh in 2023 and its name was included in the 02.08.2023 Committee List for Plot 8A mistakenly by the Mahasang, being unaware that Plot 8A, had been allotted to Balaji by the Respondent/DDA on 27.06.2023;
(ii) The letter dated 02.08.2023 enclosing the 02.08.2023 Committee List, was not acted upon by the Respondent/DDA as till that date, there was no decision with regard to the role that the Mahasangh had to play. It is only after the meeting of 31.08.2023, a decision was taken in the matter, which was incorporated in the Office Order of 07.09.2023;
(iii) Pursuant to the Office Order of 07.09.2023, Mahasangh prepared a fresh list which was submitted to the Respondent/DDA on 12.09.2023 [hereinafter referred to as "12.09.2023 Committee List"] and in terms of the 12.09.2023 Committee List, the Plot 8A has been allotted to Balaji.
11. This Court shall first deal with the issue of concealment raised by Hanumant. Relying on the judgment in the case of K.D. Sharma v. SAIL1, it is contended by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
1 (2008) 12 SCC 481
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11978/2023 & Connected matter Page 6 of 12 Digitally Signed By:SHEHROZ ALAM Signing Date:20.10.2023 22:38:59 Hanumant, that if a party approaches the Court with unclean hands, no relief is to be granted to it.
11.1 Balaji in its Affidavit dated 20.09.2023, has given an explanation about its conduct stating the following:
(i) Balaji has been conducting religious ceremony of Ramleela since 2009 and even in 2022, the Ramleela was conducted by Balaji at Plot 8A;
(ii) Mahasangh came into existence in 2022 and the President of Balaji was made an Office Bearer of the Mahasangh. Being a member of one of the oldest Religious Committees of East Delhi. The Mahasangh, however, did not conduct any meeting in 2023;
(iii) Balaji was not aware of the 02.08.2023 letter written by Mahasangh to Respondent/DDA or its contents. Balaji's authorised signatory was not privy to this decision of Mahasangh.
(iv) The Mahasangh did not inform Balaji of the 02.08.2023 Committee List or the meeting of 31.08.2023 in the office of the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor. Hence, Balaji did not attend the meeting of 31.08.2023. In support of their contentions of not attending the 31.08.2023 meeting, Balaji has filed pictures from a third party social media website showing its participants;
(v) The 02.08.2023 Committee List was wrongly sent by the Mahasangh and it is a copy of the list which was sent in the
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11978/2023 & Connected matter Page 7 of 12 Digitally Signed By:SHEHROZ ALAM Signing Date:20.10.2023 22:38:59 year 2022 and cannot be acted upon. Hence it is contended that there was no concealment by Balaji.
12. No doubt that while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, this Court would require to keep in mind the conduct of the party invoking its jurisdiction. However, a careful examination of the facts is to be done for coming to a conclusion that a party has concealed material facts to obtain orders from this Court.
12.1 The Supreme Court in K.D. Sharma case while relying on a King's Bench decision in Kensington Income Tax Commrs2 has succinctly explained this as follows:
"36. ...exercising extraordinary power a writ court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating, "We will not listen to your application because of what you have done." The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it.
37. In Kensington Income Tax Commrs. [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)] Viscount Reading, C.J. observed: (KB pp. 495-
96) "... Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant's affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when
2 (1917) 1 KB 486
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11978/2023 & Connected matter Page 8 of 12 Digitally Signed By:SHEHROZ ALAM Signing Date:20.10.2023 22:38:59 it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that the Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit."
(emphasis supplied)
38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because "the court knows law but not facts.""
[Emphasis Supplied]
13. The facts which emerge are thus. Permission to use Plot 8A was initially granted by the Respondent/DDA to Balaji in terms of the 27.06.2023 Communication. Clause 22 of the 27.06.2023 Communication states that if Plot 8A is allotted to any other religious society, then the permission may be treated as cancelled.
13.1 The Office order of 07.09.2023 sets forth that the bookings of grounds for Ramleela grounds shall be done as per the list provided by the Mahasangh pursuant to directions issued by the office of the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor on 04.09.2023. These directions read as follows:
"ENG/CEDZ/0032/SEHQ/EA2B-0/0 SE(E)-DWK Reference pre pages:
Hon'ble Lt. Governor has considered the issue at hand. The matter of booking of open spaces by the religious committees for the purpose of organising Ramlila and fee structure for the same was discussed by Hon'ble Lt. Governor with the VC, DDA on 30.08.2023 during weekly briefing. Subsequently, a meeting was held on
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11978/2023 & Connected matter Page 9 of 12 Digitally Signed By:SHEHROZ ALAM Signing Date:20.10.2023 22:38:59 31.08.2023 with all the stakeholders. After deliberation, Hon'ble Lt. Governor has desired as follows:
i Security Deposit: The rates of the Security Deposit be restricted to Rs. 20 per square meter.
ii Cleaning Charges: Cleaning charges shall remain the same as modified in revised fee structure dated 13.07.2023 i.e. Rs 2.75 per Sqm. iii Religious - Recreational: The setting up of stalls, Joyrides etc. would be permitted up to 40% of total booked area. Rest of the area will be used for Ramlila purposes.
iv Bookings of ground for Ramlila purposes by various religious committees will be done by DDA as per list provided by 'Delhi Dharmik Mahasangh' (Federation of such Religious Committees). These directives shall apply specifically to the organization of Ramlila functions only in 2023. File is returned for doing the needful, accordingly.
Sd/- 04.09.2023 (Harleen Kaur) Spl. Secretary to Lt. Governor"
[Emphasis Supplied]
13.2 On 08.09.2022, the Respondent/DDA issued a communication that based on the 02.08.2023 Committee List, Plot 8A is allotted to Hanumant.
13.3 Mahasangh revised its list on 12.09.2023. Respondent/DDA then issued another communication on 13.09.2023 wherein it was stated that Plot 8A is now re-allotted to Balaji based on the 12.09.2023 Committee List.
14. Respondent/DDA, Mahasangh and Balaji have in their respective affidavits stated that the 02.08.2023 Committee List was a mistake and never acted upon. Once the mistake was realised, a revised list being the 12.09.2023 Committee List was sent to the Respondent/DDA, which was acknowledged by the Respondent/DDA by its communication dated 13.09.2023 addressed to Balaji. Allotment of plots are, thus, being done for
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11978/2023 & Connected matter Page 10 of 12 Digitally Signed By:SHEHROZ ALAM Signing Date:20.10.2023 22:38:59 the year 2023 as per the 12.09.2023 Committee List. The relevant extract of communication dated 13.09.2023 reads as under:-
"..The list submitted by Delhi Dharmik Mahasangh vide its letter No. DDM/2023/2 dated 02.08.2023 has been further revised vide its letter no. DDA/2023/9 Dated 12.09.2023. The revised list has been considered by the higher authorities wherein plot no.8A CBD Shahdara listed in the name of Balaji Ramlila Committee (Regd.). Hence, permission given earlier vide this office letter cited under reference (i) is reinstated herewith..."
[Emphasis Supplied]
15. Applying the principles enunciated in the K.D. Sharma case and upon review of the Affidavits filed by the Respondent/DDA and Mahasangh and the explanation given by Balaji, examined above, this Court finds that there is no concealment by Balaji.
16. There is another fact that emerges. Since a policy decision was taken on 31.08.2023 and its implementation was carried out on 07.09.2023 and thereafter, the 02.08.2023 Committee List would not be said to be the Mahasangh List of 2023, as this list pre-dates the 31.08.2023 meeting.
17. Hanumant has contended that the Balaji booking was subject to the Mahasangh List in terms of Clause 22. Both Respondent/DDA and Mahasangh have clarified that the correct and updated list is the 12.09.2023 Committee List and not the 02.08.2023 Committee List.
18. Hence, the Mahasangh List of 12.09.2023, i.e., 12.09.2023 Committee List would be the applicable list and Balaji was allotted Plot 8A both by the booking and pursuant to the 12.09.2023 Committee List. 18.1 The balance of convenience is also in Balaji's favour. Balaji had contended that after the acceptance of booking on 27.06.2023, Balaji took various steps in pursuance of the allotment of Plot 8A to it, it should be
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11978/2023 & Connected matter Page 11 of 12 Digitally Signed By:SHEHROZ ALAM Signing Date:20.10.2023 22:38:59 entitled to hold the Ramleela festivities on Plot 8A. In any event, there are only a few days of the 45 days' booking made by Balaji on 27.06.2023, which remain.
19. In view of the fact that the Dussehra festivities will come to an end within the next few days and given the paucity of time, this Court deems it expedient to pass urgent directions for the conduct of the Ramleela festivities.
19.1 Ramleela festivities shall be conducted at Plot 8A by Balaji Ram Leela Committee (Regd.) for the period from 18.10.2023 onwards. 19.2 Balaji shall comply with all safety norms, other applicable norms and all other requisite terms and conditions, including as prescribed by Respondent/DDA.
20. The applications are accordingly disposed of in terms of the above directions.
21. Parties to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order. W.P.(C) Nos.11978/2023 and W.P.(C) 12337/2023
22. List for clarification and further arguments on 30.01.2024.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J OCTOBER 18, 2023/yg Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11978/2023 & Connected matter Page 12 of 12 Digitally Signed By:SHEHROZ ALAM Signing Date:20.10.2023 22:38:59
