Concealment of material facts and failure to comply with court directions can lead to the dismissal of a petition seeking rehabilitation and stay on demolition. Only the notified clusters as per the DUSIB policy shall be entitled to rehabilitation.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

W.P.(C) 11871/2022 and CM APPL. 35471/2022 (Interim relief)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the occupants of jhuggies at T- Huts, Moolchand Basti-1, Rajghat, New Delhi- 110002 (`said premises'). They have filed this petition seeking rehabilitation and a stay on the demolition of their jhuggis till the pendency of the present writ petition.

3. Vide order dated 17th August, 2022, the court had recorded that the Petitioners had concealed material facts in this Petition. This included concealment of the relevant fact that the fathers of the eighteen Petitioners had instituted litigation in respect of the same property right up to the Supreme Court and lost.

4. Thereafter, vide order dated 11th November, 2022, the court had directed to issue bailable warrants against all the petitioners and ordered all the Petitioners to appear before the Court on the next date of hearing. The order dated 11th November, 2022 is as under:

"1. On 17 August 2022, the Court had by a detailed order noted and come to conclude that the petitioners had clearly concealed material facts. It was in that backdrop that they were called upon to show cause why proceedings in criminal contempt be not drawn. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a reply has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by their counsels.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the aforesaid reply is supported by the affidavit of the petitioner. However, a copy of that affidavit which has been placed would show that it is not notarized at all. It is thus manifest that the petitioners have failed to comply with the directions issued on 17 August 2022. The Court is further constrained to note that the said reply far from expressing any regret continues to raise contentions pertaining to the merits of the claim even though the same had been duly noticed and rejected by the Court earlier.

3. Additionally, Ms. Kaur, learned counsel appearing for the Authority, has drawn the attention of the Court to the institution of contempt case being CONT.CAS(C) No. 730/2022 [Randheer and Ors. vs. Manish Kumar Gupta And Ors.] by the petitioners in July 2022. In the aforesaid contempt petition, the petitioners have, in essence, sought identical reliefs. Also an early hearing application appears to have been moved and pressed on 22 August 2022 and which was also granted. The Court notes that even before the Contempt Court the petition was taken up on 22 August 2022. The petitioners did not disclose the passing of the order dated 17 August 2022 in those proceedings either.

4. Consequently, bailable warrants shall be issued against all the petitioners who shall appear before the Court on 13.01.2023 and show cause why charges be not framed against them for having committed willful and deliberate criminal contempt of the Court."

5. A perusal of the previous order dated 13th January, 2023 shows that material facts have been clearly concealed by the Petitioners in this matter. The said order reads:

"7. Upon a query from the Court as to whether the Petitioners disclosed the earlier litigations under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, Mr. Mishra points out to this Court paragraph 5 of the petition, which reads as under:

"5. The present petition is limited to the rights of the petitioners as slum dweller in their respective jhuggies and the petitioners in the present case are not claiming the right on the land as may be available to them in different statutes for the long duration for which they have been holding the land."

8. It appears from the above deliberation that the factum of public premises litigation having been unsuccessful, was in the knowledge of the Counsel, who drafted and filed the present petition.

9. It is also noticed that most of the Petitioners are either daily wagers or workers working in the informal sector.

10. Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, ld. Counsel for the D