Delhi High Court orders CBI probe against a litigant who filed repeated petitions alleging unauthorised constructions.

The High Court of Delhi has directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether any cognizable offence had been committed and has directed it to submit a report on or before the next date of hearing.

The Counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) submitted that the Petitioner had perfected the art of exploiting the respondents by filing Public Interest Litigations qua unauthorised constructions. The Counsel for MCD also furnished a list of 42 matters which had been field by the Petitioner since March 2021. Pertinently, on verification from the Registry, it was  revealed that out of the said list of forty two (42) matters, only seventeen (17) matters were listed before the court and the remaining twenty five (25) matters were not listed in the Court, while the Registry, on enquiry, informed that the said matters were not filed with it. The Counsel submitted that most of the times the petitions were filed with the registry only and not even listed in the court. It was also revealed that in the matters which were listed before the Court, the petitioner or his counsel did not appear on several dates in most of the matters and some of these matters were disposed of either on the report submitted by MCD or directions were issued to approach the Special Task Force (STF).

The Petitioner submitted a list of 33 cases which had been filed by him over a period of time and that the registry gave a report in respect of matters at serial nos. 1 to 12 which also revealed that most of the cases were either dismissed in default or were disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Committee. The petitioner had been filing writ petitions pertaining to individual properties in the same locality instead of bunching them and claiming that he had no personal interest in the litigation and that the petition was not guided by self-gain or for gain of any other person/ institution/ body and there was no other motive than public interest.

That also in most of the matters, the petitioner or his counsel failed to appear during the hearings or the petitioner failed to get most of the matters listed after serving the advance notice of the petition on the MCD and/ or the private respondents.

The Court Observed thus:

“In these circumstances, the apprehensions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/ MCD cannot be overlooked. To rule out any apprehension, this Court deems it appropriate to direct a proper inquiry to be conducted in the matter. Accordingly, CBI is directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether any cognizable offence has been committed and if so, by whom. The CBI is directed to submit the report of preliminary enquiry on or before the next date of hearing.”

Rahul Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi