Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Rajni Kukreja - Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 6238 of 2022 & CM Appls. 18750 of 2022 and 18751 of 2022
Decided On : 22-04-2022
Suppressing material facts can disqualify a petitioner from seeking discretionary relief, supporting the principle of approaching courts with clean hands.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 19(1)(g), 300A - Petition filed seeking directions for removal of temporary construction obstructing ingress/egress to a shop - Claim of malice against municipal authorities for erecting a wall in front of the shop - Petitioner's suppression of material facts regarding the existence of a historic drinking water tap (Piyau). (Paras 1, 3, 12, 16)
(B) Jurisdiction - Suppression of material facts in seeking discretionary relief - Notion of 'unclean hands' applied, referencing principle from Supreme Court case law regarding discretionary jurisdiction and material facts. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged obstruction of business rights due to a wall constructed by the North DMC, claiming malice due to previous conflicts with neighboring shop owners over footpath encroachments. Respondent countered that the wall's construction was in response to the historical existence of a water tap prior to unlawful demolition.
Findings of Court:
Petitioner failed to come to the court with clean hands due to significant concealment of material facts regarding the water tap's existence and past representations.
Issues: Whether the construction violated the petitioner's rights and the implications of suppressed facts on the relief sought.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of clean conduct to seek discretionary relief, ruling against the petitioner due to the suppression of material facts relevant to the case.
Result: Petition disposed of; petitioner directed to deposit funds for upkeep of the Piyau.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's rights claims regarding business obstruction. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. background facts about construction and previous actions. (Para 2 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. court's analysis on suppression of material facts. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 4. legal principle on material facts and clean hands. (Para 15) |
| 5. resolution of the petition and direction on deposit. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent-NDMC, its officials to remove Temporary- Kachi Wall, stopping the egress & ingress of the Petitioner to Shop No.628, Main Road, Khari Baoli, Delhi, in the interest of justice;
(ii) to issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent/NDMC officials to remove encroachment on Footpath outside Shop No.628, Main Road, Khari Baoli, Delhi in the interest of justice;
(iii) to restrain the Respondent/NDMC officials from raising any construction obstructing entrance/Right of way/ Footpath to Shop No.628, Main Road, Khari Baoli, Delhi in the interest of justice;
(iv) pass any other and/or further order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of a shop bearing No. 628, Main Road, Khari Baoli, by virtue of registered Sale Deed dated 29.11.2018. It is her grievance that ingress/egress to/from her shop, which is touched by a 7 ft. footpath maintained by the respondent/North DMC, is being obstructed by the creation of a 7 ft. Kachi (temporary) Wall infront of the shop by the respondent/North DMC. The petitioner also assails raising of walls measuring 4 ft. each, on the left and right side on the footpath.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned construction infront of the petitioner's shop is obstructing ingress/egress to/from the shop, and as such, the act of the Corporation in raising the same is violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India. It is stressed that on account of the impugned construction, allegedly carried out on the footpath, the petitioner has been denied `right to carry out business' and `right to property'.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the neighbouring shop owners at Main Road, Khari Baoli had earlier attempted to encroach upon the footpath by raising illegal and unauthorised construction. Assailing the same, a Suit bearing No. 732/2020 was filed by the petitioner, wherein vide order dated 13.02.2020, interim relief was granted against the said shop owners. It is alleged that since the shop owners could not succeed in encroaching upon the footpath on account of the Suit filed by the petitioner, they got officials of the Corporation to raise the Kachi Wall infront of her shop to intentionally obstruct the entrance thereof. As such, the construction of the Kachi Wall by the Corporation infront of the petitioner's shop is stated to be actuated by malice, having been raised at the behest of neighbouring shop owners.
5. Ms. Mini Pushkarna, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/North DMC, submits that the present petition has been filed in suppression and concealment of material facts. It is contended that a Piyau (drinking water tap) infront of the petitioner's property/shop was in existence for about last 100 years, until its unauthorised demolition by unknown persons in the year 2020, and the impugned act of construction by the respondent/North DMC infront of the petitioner's shop relates to the re-construction of the said Piyau.
6. Learned Standing Counsel has handed over a set of documents in Court, including copies of - (i) representations dated 17.04.2019 and 25.09.2019 made by the petitioner seeking removal of the Piyau, (ii) office noting of North DMC dated 06.09.2018, indicatin
