The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person cannot repeatedly approach a Writ Court claiming the same relief by making changes in the prayer clause, as it would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioner has approached this Court for challenging Clause 1(iv) of Part B of the Delhi Slum & JJ. Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as `the Policy'), which stipulates that the name of the Jhuggi Jhopri (hereinafter referred to as `the JJ') dweller must appear in the joint survey conducted by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (hereinafter referred to as `the DUSIB') and the Land Owning Agency, is violative of Article 14, 21, 38 & 39 of the Constitution of India and the same shall be declared as null and void. The Petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 06.07.2021 passed by the DUSIB rejecting the representation of the Petitioner herein by which he had claimed for alternate accommodation in view of dispossession from Jhuggi No.25 situated in JJ Cluster, C-Block, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.

2. It is stated that the Petitioner and his wife were residing at Jhuggi No.25 situated in JJ Cluster, C-Block, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, and they were dispossessed in August 2012. The Petitioner, thereafter, approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) No.3609/2021, claiming rehabilitation under the Policy. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by an Order dated 19.03.2021. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed a representation for allotment of an alternative accommodation in view of dispossession from Jhuggi No.25 situated in JJ Cluster, C-Block, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, which was dismissed by the DUSIB vide Order dated 06.07.2021 on the ground that the Petitioner herein and his wife did not produce their Aadhar Card because of which the eligibility letter was not issued to them and their names did not appear in the joint survey conducted by the DUSIB and the Land Owning Agency which is a mandatory condition for a person to be entitled to rehabilitation.

3. The Petitioner has, therefore, challenged the Policy which mandates that the name of a JJ Dweller must appear in the survey conducted by the DUSIB and the Land Owning Agency.

4. Mr. M. K. Gahlaut, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, states that the said Clause is violative of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and is contrary to the object and purpose of the DUSIB Act which was brought in to ensure rehabilitation of a Jhuggi Dweller if he was sought to be evicted. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Ajay Maken & Ors v. Union of India & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7618, to contend that the Petitioner is entitled to rehabilitation.

5. Per contra, Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, learned Counsel for DUSIB, states that the present petition is an abuse of the process of law inasmuch as the Petitioner had already approached this Court claiming rehabilitation and that petition had been dismissed. He states that the Petitioner has now chosen a novel way to ask for the same relief by filing the instant Petition challenging the Policy itself.

6. Heard Mr. M.K. Gahlaut, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, learned Counsel for DUSIB, and perused the material on record.

7. Material on record shows that the Petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No. 3609/2021 claiming that he was dispossessed from Jhuggi No.25 situated in JJ Cluster, C-Block, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, in August 2012. He had sought for an alternative accommodation in the said petition. Further, in the said Petition it was stated that after being dispossessed, the Petitioner is now living in a tenanted accommodation at WZ-44, Basai Darapur, Moti Nagar, Near Tyagi Dharamshala, New Delhi-110015. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide Order dated 19.03.2021 on the ground of delay and latches. The learned Single placed reliance on the judgment dated 01.09.2015, passed by this Court in WP.(C) 7889/2011, titled as Dayachand v. Union of India, wherein this Court had held that rehabilitation has a sense and element of urgency attached thereto and, if it is found that t