The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner who has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts is not entitled to equitable relief. Additionally, when an equally efficacious remedy is available, a writ petition should not be entertained.

JUDGMENT

BRIJESH SETHI, J.

1. Vide the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 482 Cr.P.C, petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 & 2 to initiate appropriate department action against the respondent 3 to 5 for illegal demolition of part of property bearing no. B-66, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi i.e. house of the petitioner; directing the respondent no. 2 to lodge appropriate criminal complaint against the respondent no.3 to 5 and also to direct the respondent no. 1 to provide police protection to the petitioner and his family members.

2. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had constructed his house bearing no. B-66, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi as per the MCD Rules & Regulations in year 1959 and is residing there along with his wife Smt. Kailash Oberai. Respondent nos. 6, 7 & 8 are the residents in the same neighbourhood and respondent no. 6 and 7 are owner of the property bearing no. B-63 & B-64, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi whereas the respondent no. 8 is the President of the Resident Welfare Association.

3. It is alleged that in the year 2012, the respondent no. 6 & 7 had extended their house from the back and front side by encroaching upon government land which blocked the back lane of the property bearing nos.B-63 & B-64, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Due to this encroachment, the lane has been narrowed down to a great extent creating a bottleneck. The respondent nos. 6, 7 & 8 have over constructed the area by occupying 110 square yards and have gone beyond their plot of 100 sq. and encroached upon the road and built four floors.

4. It is further submitted that petitioner made a complaint to the respondent no.2, but no action was taken against the illegal encroachment by the respondent no. 6 & 7. Being aggrieved and disappointed by non-action of the respondent no.2, petitioner filed applications/complaints to the Lt. Governor of Delhi dt. 06.07.2013 and 07.08.2014 for taking appropriate legal action against the illegal encroachment upon the government land but no communication was received there from.

5. On 16.10.2015, the petitioner received a reply from the respondent no. 2-Maintenance division, in which it was stated that the encroachment has been removed but the encroachment stood as it is except for removal of steel gates. On inquiry, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that petitioner nos. 2 to 5 are hand in glove with respondent no. 6, 7 and 8 and respondent no. 3, 4 and 5 have submitted false report in their department regarding removal of encroachment.

6. It is further submitted that several RTI applications and complaints were made by the petitioner against the said encroachment and against respondent nos. 2 to 7 on which they got annoyed and made plan to demolish the house of the petitioner illegally for taking vengeance and also threatened the petitioner that they will teach him a lesson if he will not stop filing RTI applications.

7. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel that on 04.05.2016 in the morning at about 10-11 a.m., the respondent nos. 2 to 8 came at the residence of the petitioner with appropriate police protection and SDMC labor and machinery and without any notice and without giving any time to the petitioner to even transfer and remove his personal things from his house illegally demolished part of the property of the petitioner. When petitioner tried to know the matter, Respondent no. 5 Mr. Bhopinder Kumar, JE replied that they warned him and directed him to stop filing the RTI applications and complaints but he did not understand the same. It was further stated that the petitioner should give in writing that he would not file any RTI and would withdraw all the complaints. Thereafter, despite showing sanctioned plan issued by the MCD, respondent no. 5 gave direction to the labourers to de