Shri Gulzar Ahmad vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Gita Mittal, J.—This writ petition has been filed by one Shri Gulzar Ahmad as the owner in possession of the premises bearing No. 6342-6343/XI, Quresh Nagar, Qusabpura, Sadar Bazar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ''the premises'') praying for quashing of the desealing order dated 29th June, 2007 passed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in respect of these premises. The petitioner has prayed for a further direction to these respondents to re-seal these premises.

The facts giving rise to the petition are within a narrow compass. The petitioner has claimed that he had purchased these premises along with Nasim @ Pathan-respondent No. 3 herein, in the year 1985 from its erstwhile owner, namely, Shri Ramesh Chand Khullar and six others including Smt. Pushpa Wanti. It is urged that the petitioner was in enjoyment of the right side portion of the premises.

In support of his claim, the petitioner places reliance on a bill for water consumption dated 4th March, 2004 and development charges which appear to have been paid to the respondent No. 1 in the year 2003. The respondent No. 3 is stated to be in occupation of the left side portion of the premises.

On the allegations that the petitioner was carrying on a trade without obtaining any licence, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 effected the sealing of the premises on 23rd September, 2004. This action of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was assailed by the petitioner by way of the writ petition being WP(C) No. 13542/2006.

The writ petition was disposed of by this Court by an order passed on 9th October, 2006, the operative portion whereof reads thus:

The petitioner is directed to file an appropriate undertaking with the MCD and also furnish a copy of the same to the Court, stating that he would not carry on any commercial activity or any business or trade for which licence is required without obtaining the same as the provisions of law or guidelines framed by the respondent MCD. In the event of the petitioner furnishing such undertaking, MCD shall ensure that the seals are removed within two weeks.

The petitioner has submitted that he filed the undertaking as directed by the court. When the officers of the MCD came for desealing of the premises, the respondent No. 3 obstructed the same. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 filed two applications, one being CM No. 13686/2006 by way of which he sought impleadment as party in the writ petition and another being CM No. 13685/2006 for recalling of order dated 9th October, 2006 in the WP(C) No. 13542/2006. These applications came up for consideration and were disposed of by an order dated 16th April, 2007. Some of the observations made by the court impact adjudication in the present matter and consequently are set out in extenso hereinbelow:

To this Court, it appears that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts. The facts that have come to light after the passing of the order dated 9th October, 2006 were not available to the court at the time of passing of the said order. On this short ground, the said order should be recalled. Accordingly, the order dated 9th October, 2006 in WP(C) No. 13542/2005 3 of 4 recalled and direction is issued to the MCD to continue to keep the property in question sealed, till it is satisfied, in accordance with law that the property requires to be de-sealed.

The prayer sought in the writ petition cannot, in view of the disputed facts and circumstances, be granted. Therefore, the writ petition itself is without merit and deserves to be dismissed.

As regards the stand taken by the MCD that until and unless the parties setting up rival claims produce evidence of their respective claims, it will not in be a position to de-seal the property No. 6342/43. Quresh Nagar, Qasab Pura, Sadar Bazar, Delhi that order is valid in law and does not call for any interference whatsoever.

With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed and the applications are disposed of.

Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner assailed the same by way of LPA No. 366/2007 which was listed before the Division Bench on 25th May, 2007. It is an admitted position that the respondent before this Court was duly represented when notice was issued in the letters patent appeal.

In the meantime, Shri Naseem Pathan, respondent No. 3 herein, made a request to the MCD for desealing the premises which had been sealed on 23rd September, 2004. The request was favourably considered by the MCD which passed an order dated 29th June, 2007 directing opening of the seal, with the direction that the property would be used by the respondent No. 3 for lawful and permissible purpose and would not be misused for carrying on illegal slaughtering.

The letters patent appeal was listed on 30th July, 2007 before the Division Bench when it was held that so far as the order dated 29th June, 2007 of the MCD was concerned, it was against the interest of the petitioner because the MCD had proceeded to determine the rights of the parties. In this background, the court held that it was open to the appellant (the petitioner herein) to challenge the order which was a fresh cause of action, in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

The petitioner has consequently filed the present writ petition assailing the order dated 29th June, 2007 and has also sought resealing of the premises. The writ petition has been strongly contested by the respondent No. 3 who has also filed a detailed counter affidavit.

The petitioner has placed reliance on the pleadings of the respondent No. 3 in Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 4803/2003 wherein he had admitted that the petitioner is in possession of the half portion of the property in question. According to the petitioner, even the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had admitted the petitioner''s possession in the property in the criminal complaint lodged by it. According to Mr. Tarique Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the order dated 29th June, 2007 of the MCD desealing the premises in favour of the respondent No. 3 is consequently wholly arbitrary, illegal and mala fide.

Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has contended that the premises was owned by Smt. Pushpa Wati Khullar and six others as co-owners. The respondent No. 3 was inducted as a tenant in this premises in the year 1962 at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- per month. According to the respondent No. 3, Smt. Pushpa Wati Khullar collected and accepted the monthly rent regularly for and on behalf of other co-owners. To support his occupation and possession of the subject property, the respondent No. 3 has placed reliance on electricity bills dated 6th August, 2005, 14th January, 2006; water bill dated 1st March, 2007; a property tax receipt of February, 2005, 20th November, 2006. It is noteworthy that a property tax receipt dated 25th April, 2005 in the name of M/s Hides & Co., has also been placed on recorder The respondent No. 3 has also relied on certain challans u/s 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 drawn up against him which are dated 6th February, 2003 and thereafter. On these pleas, the respondent No. 3 has claimed to be exclusive occupant of the premises in question.

It has also been contended on behalf of the respondent No. 3 that the sealing which was effected on 23rd September, 2004 was in the name of the respondent No. 3 and that in the fore-going facts, the order dated 29th June, 2007 was rightly passed by the MCD in favour of this respondent.

During the course of arguments, Mr. B.K. Patel, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, has stated that he has also filed a suit against the petitioner and the private respondents in this Court seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that the respondent No. 3 is a lawful tenant in the premises and he has also sought a decree for injunction against the petitioner and the private respondents.

It is also the case of the respondent No. 3 in the counter affidavit, that the petitioner is a stranger to the property who has nothing to do with the property and that he has no right, title and interest therein. For this reason, it is contended that the petitioner has no right to even maintain this writ petition.

Before this court, the MCD has also contested the writ petition contending that it has acted in accordance with law. The submission is that verification of the documents submitted by the respondent No. 3 was effected from the house tax department and only thereafter, the representation of the respondent No. 3 was favourably considered and desealing was effected on 29th June, 2007. According to the MCD, the petitioner neither submitted any representation for desealing the property nor furnished any documents.

While this matter was pending before this court, it took a curious turn inasmuch as CM No. 14802/2007 was filed by Smt. Krishna Devi Lamba, Shri S.K. Lamba, N.K. Lamba, Shri Jay Deep Chojar, Shri Arun Bagga & Shri Avinash Oberoi, who were all claiming rights in the premises as heirs of some of the original owners. This application was allowed by this Court by an order passed on 29th November, 2007 and they were brought on record as party respondent No. 4 to 9.

On behalf of these respondents, Ms. Sonali Malhotra learned Counsel was also heard. These respondents have vehemently contested the claim of title and possession of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3. It has been contended that the property was originally owned not by Smt. Pushpa Wati Khullar alone but by a total number of six persons, namely, Shri Hukam Chand Bagga, Shri Shiv Nath Nanda, Shri Rajinder Oberoi, Smt. Pushpa Wati Khullar, Smt. Lajwani Lamba and Shri Dev Raj Lamba.

According to these respondents, Shri Naseem Pathan, respondent No. 3 has acted in connivance and collusion of the officials of the MCD and was attempting to get the property in his name in the records of the MCD. It is submitted that the premises have also been desealed in a totally illegal manner. Reliance has been placed on objections dated 19th April, 2007 filed by the applicants to these efforts of the respondent No. 3. These applicants have relied on copies of the registered documents of title in favour of the aforenoticed six persons and other documents to contend that neither the petitioner nor the respondent No. 3 have any legal right, title or interest in the subject property. These respondents have however supported the petitioner to the extent that the action of the MCD in desealing the property in favour of the respondent No. 3 was illegal and without jurisdiction.

In this background, a direction was issued to the MCD to make available the original recorder The MCD thereafter has also placed copies of the documents which were filed by the respondent No. 3 to support his claim before it which were relied upon by the MCD for desealing the premises in question.

It appears that the respondent No. 3 had made a representation dated 20th April, 2007 wherein he had made a claim that he was the owner having possessory right of the property in question. To support his ownership and possessory rights, the respondent No. 3 filed photocopies of a general power of attorney, certain documents purportedly executed by Smt. Pushpa Wati Khullar which included a general power of attorney executed in May, 2000 and an agreement to sell dated 12th May, 2007, a receipt dated 12th May, 2007 and an irrevocable general power of attorney executed by one Shri Mohd. Hasan dated 18th March, 2007 in favour of the respondent No. 3 and some documents including electricity bills and two property tax payments to the MCD.

It is noteworthy that a general power of attorney executed in May, 2000 and an agreement to sell dated 12th May, 2000 is relied upon by the respondent No. 3, which are allegedly executed by Smt. Pushpa Wati Khullar. The agreement to sell dated the 12th of May, 2000 is in favour of one Shri Mohammad Hasan, and it states that Smt. Pushp Wati Khullar was the actual owner and in possesison of the property of the entire premises. These documents are not in favour of the respondent No. 3 and also evidence that respondent No. 3 had no rights and, in fact, was not in possession of the subject property in May, 2000.

An irrevocable general power of attorney dated 18th March, 2005 purportedly executed by Shri Mohd. Hasan in favour of the respondent No. 3 and relied upon by him also records that Smt. Pushpa Wati Khullar was in physical possession of the entire premises in question. Shri Mohd. Hasan was claiming to be the general attorney of Smt. Pushpa Wati Khullar.

These documents would clearly show that the respondent No. 3 admittedly had no connection with the subject property even as late as on 18th March, 2005. At best, he was only appointed as attorney by Mohd. Hasan in respect of this property on the 18th March, 2005.

The documents which are relied upon are purportedly executed by Smt. Pushpa Wati Khullar in favour of Mohd. Hasan. The general power of attorney purportedly executed by Smt. Pushpa Wati Khullar appointing Shri Mohd. Hasan as her attorney, is an unregistered document. The agreement to sell dated 12th May, 2000 also does not transfer right, title and interest in law in favour of Smt. Mohd. Hasan. Certainly, the respondent No. 3 who has based his rights on a general power of attorney dated 18th March, 2005 purportedly executed by Shri Mohd. Hasan appointing him as attorney based on the attorney of Smt. Pushpa Wati is without legal authority. Thus the respondent No. 3 on his own showing has no legal title or right derived from the documents which have been placed before the MCD. The same even demolishes his plea that he was in possession on 23rd September, 2004 when the premises were sealed.

This plea of the respondent No. 3 is also falsified by the criminal complaint dated 20th May, 2004 filed by the MCD with the SHO of the Police Station Sadar Bazar. This complaint has been made by Shri Narender Dabas, ZAVS/CZ of the MCD stating that on inspections on 3rd April, 2004 & 14th April, 2004, Shri Gulzar Ahmed, owner of the premises No. 6342/43 Qusanbpura, Quresh Nagar, Sadar Bazar, Delhi was found indulging in illegal slaughtering and causing public nuisance. On the basis of this complaint, the police registered a case being FIR No. 226/2004 against the petitioner. It is noteworthy that the MCD had requested the police to take necessary legal action against the owner of the premises Shri Gulzar Ahmed.

Based on this complaint registered by the police, a challan was also filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate u/s 291 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

My attention has been drawn to a petition filed by Shri Naseem @ Pathan, respondent No. 3 herein, against the police authorities in this Court u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code which was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 4893/2003. The present petitioner is arrayed as respondent No. 4 therein. The respondent No. 3 has stated therein that prior to 1996, he was doing business with the present petitioner and Shri S.K. Lamba in the name & style of M/s Hide & Co. The respondent No. 3 had set up a partnership agreement between the parties since 1985 till 1996 when there were heavy losses. According to the respondent No. 3, on account of betrayal of Shri Gulzar Ahmed, the partnership suffered loss and the firm was dissolved. Thereafter, the parties started doing business individually. In this petition, the respondent No. 3 set up a plea that he had "purchased a property bearing No. 6342-6343 at Quaresh Nagar, Delhi from one Shri Ramesh Chand Khullar and six other persons". In these pleadings, Nasim @ Pathan, the present respondent No. 3 has stated that the entire consideration of the property was given by him as well as by the present petitioner but no documents were ever executed with regard to this property in favour of either party.

So far as the possession of the property was concerned, in Crl. Misc. (Main) No. 4893/2003 filed on 23rd October, 2003, it was stated by Shri Naseen @ Pathan-respondent No. 3 that he was having actual possession of the left side portion and the portion of the right side was in actual possession of the present petitioner and that he had never intended to encroach or claim ownership of the portion in the possession of the present petitioner nor ever threatened to do so.

On these averments, the respondent No. 3 had sought quashing of the proceedings initiated by the police against him on the basis of a kalandra dated 5th June, 2003 filed by the Police Station Sadar Bazar, Delhi.

In the light of the facts noticed above, I find that the respondent No. 3 has admitted and accepted that the petitioner was having possession of the part of the premises. The MCD has also made a criminal complaint even on 20th May, 2004 to the effect that the petitioner was occupying the premises No. 6342-6343 at Quresh Nagar, Delhi on which basis, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Therefore, the contention that the respondent No. 3 was the only person in possession is certainly not made out from the case set up by the MCD as well as the respondent No. 3.

So far as title of the property is concerned, the respondent No. 3 has set up a claim in the first pleadings filed by him in Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 4893/2003, that he had purchased the entire premises from one Shri Ramesh Singh Khullar and six other persons. Before the MCD, in the representation dated 20th April, 2007 also, the respondent No. 3 has stated that he is the owner having possessory rights in this property. The documents which are filed by the petitioner in support of this claim have been considered hereinabove.

Mindful of the fact that he would not be able to support his claim of ownership, the respondent No. 3 has taken a somersault in the counter affidavit which has been filed in this Court whereby he is claiming to be a tenant in the premises since 1962. This plea is contrary to the pleas set up in Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 4893/2003.

Not only this, copy of the plaint dated 12th November, 2007 which has been filed by the respondent No. 3 on the original side of this Court in Suit No. 22323/2007 entitled Naseem Pathan v. Gulzar Ahmed and Ors. has been placed before this court. Apart from the petitioner, the respondent has arrayed the private respondents as defendant Nos. 2-7. The respondent No. 3 in this plaint has set up a plea that he was a tenant in the property bearing No. 6342/43, Quresh Nagar, Qusabpura, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- per month from these persons. In the suit, the respondent No. 3 has made a prayer for a declaration that he is a tenant in the subject property. It is therefore apparent that the respondent No. 3 has no legal right, title or interest in the property on his own showing and has set up false pleas. There is not a single document to support his claim of tenancy on recorder

This claim has to be examined from yet another angle. Appearing for the newly added respondents, Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Advocate has placed a copy of the sale deed relating to the purchase by six owners of the property in question in the auction which was held on 4th November, 1960. The original owners have unfortunately expired on several dates which have been placed before this court. It is the contention of these respondents that Smt. Pushpa Wati Khullar did not have an absolute right, title and interest in the property and had no right, either to sell the same to any person or to let out the same. It has been disputed that the respondent No. 3 has made any payment of rent to Smt. Pushpa Wati Khullar who has accepted the same or on behalf of any other owner. These respondents have denied that the respondent No. 3 was their tenant.

The MCD was directed to produce the original record relating to the desealing of the premises which has been produced. The same reveals a shocking state of affairs. In a noting dated 30th May, 2007, the Junior Engineer (Building-SPZ) has recorded that after going through the papers and court orders as submitted by the applicant, Nasim Pathan, the following observations inter alia were drawn:

The ownership of property in question is disputed, as stated by Mr. Vijay, Deputy Commissioner, MCD/City Zone in his affidavit.

MCD asked both the parties to submit proof of ownership which they failed to do so. Matter was sent to Assessor and Collector Department (City Zone) to verify the proof of ownership. House Tax Department revealed that neither of the parties was the owner of property in question.

MCD will not be able to deseal the property No. 6342/6343 Quresh Nagar, Sadar Bazaar unless and until parties submit/give evidence of their ownership.

The Hon''ble High Court recalled its earlier order to deseal the property in question and direction was issued to the MCD to continue to keep the property in question sealed till it is satisfied in accordance with law that the property requires to be desealed. Also the stand taken by MCD is valid in law and does not call for any interference.

After recording such observations, the Junior Engineer had opined that it seems that the property was sealed due to illegal slaughter of animals which do not pertain to the building department and consequently, the matter should be sent to the Health Department for further action.

The Deputy Commissioner on the 5th of June, 2007 recorded that power of attorney dated 18th March, 2005 showed that the property was in possession of Mohd. Hasan. A direction was issued to the Veterinary Officer to obtain the ownership documents of Mohd. Hasan which may be got confirmed from the house tax department in the first instance. This direction was reiterated by the Deputy Commissioner on the 15th of June, 2007 and 19th June, 2007.

The file was sent to the Deputy Assessor and Collector of the House Tax Department of the MCD who, on 21st June, 2007, has recorded that as per records of the years 1987-88 to 1990-91, the property No. 6342-43/XIV, Qasab Pura stands in the names of the following tax payers:

Shri Hukam Chand, Swaran Mitar Mandal, Rajinder Nath, Dev Raj, Smt Pushpawati, Lajjawati through New Bharat Trading.

Thereafter, on the 28th June, 2007, the Deputy Commissioner (SP Zone), after referring to the order dated 16th April, 2007, has recorded thus:

....After passing of the above order by Hon''ble High Court of Delhi, Sh. Naseem Pathan submitted an application to the MCD for desealing the property claiming ownership and possessory rights in the property (page 40/C & 41/C). He has produced the following documents in support of his ownership and physical possession of the property:

An affidavit duly sworn before the Notary Public (page 39/C).

General Power of Attorney in respect of the property executed in his favour by Mohd. Hassan S/o Shri Kalbe Hassan (page 26/C to 37/C).

House Tax Receipts for the year 2004-05 to 2006-07 (page 23/C to 25/C).

The Electricity bill issued by BSES (page 21/C & 22/C).

Provisional Mutation letter issued by the Delhi Jal Board (page 20/C).

Copy of notice u/s 407, 415 and 417 issued by the MCD during 2001(page 18/C).

Copy of challans/notices issued by MCD during 2003 (page 17/C).

Copy of the application for issue of trade license to MCD submitted in June, 2003 (page 9/C).

Copy of the General Power of Attorney executed between Smt. Pushpawanti in favour of Sh. Mohd. HassainS/O Sh. Kalbe Hassan in May, 2000 (page 52/C to 54/C).

House Tax Department of MCD was also asked to clarify the status of property in question who have provided copy of Demand & Collection Register indicating the name of Smt. Pushpawanti alongwith other co-owners (page 55/C & 56/C).

The records of MCD also indicate that the property was sealed in the name of Sh. Naseem Pathan (page 46/C).

The other claimant namely Sh. Gulzar Ahmed has not turned up so far with any ownership claim or documentary evidence in his support.

Meanwhile,the applicant also filed a Writ Petition before the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi which has been disposed of by the Court vide its Order dt. 11.5.07 in view of the statement of Municipal Counsel directing MCD to consider the petitioner''s representation dt. 20-4-2007, in accordance with law within a period of four weeks (page 3\\42/C to 44/C).

In view of above facts and circumstances, it may be seen that prima-facie Sh. Naseem Pathan is the lawful owner and possessor of the property in question.

The premises may therefore be desealed in favour of the applicant with the direction that the property will henceforth be used by him for lawful and permissible purposes and the same will not be misused for carrying on illegal slaughtering or any other objectionable trade activity in violation of the order of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India, the provisions of DMC Act and various notification issued by Government from time to time including MPD 2021.

The Additional Commissioner approved this noting on the 29th June, 2007 and the desealing order was thereafter directed to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner.

The property tax department had provided the information with regard to the recorded owners. From the foregoing, it is apparent that despite noticing that the chain of title was incomplete and there was nothing on record to establish ownership of Mr. Mohd. Hasan from whom Mr. Nasim Pathan was claiming entitlement in the subject property, yet the impugned order was passed on a total non-consideration of the relevant material in favour of a person who is not a recorded owner.

Even if it could be held that the MCD could effect desealing in favour of a person who was in possession at the time of sealing, the instant case, does not fall under even such category in view of the mutually contradictory pleas set up by the respondent No. 3.

The plea taken by the MCD to support their order dated 29th June, 2007 is premised on the claim of the ownership of the property set up by the respondent No. 3 before them. This claim has been totally abandoned by the respondent No. 3 in the present proceedings as well as the suit filed by him. As noticed above, the plea of absolute possession of the respondent No. 3 at the time of sealing is also demolished by the police complaint lodged by the MCD against the petitioner. The admission of the respondent No. 3 in the Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 4893/2003 also completely belies such stand.

The order dated 29th June, 2007 of the MCD was brought to the notice of the Division Bench by the petitioner herein when LPA No. 366/2007 was taken up for hearing. The court considered the matter at length. So far as the order dated 21st June, 2007 was concerned, in its order dated 30th July, 2007 the Division Bench held thus:

There is a serious dispute between the appellant and the respondent No. 3 and both claim ownership of the property. There is also dispute as to who was in possession of the property when it was sealed by MCD. Therefore, so long the right of the parties and the aforesaid disputes are not determined in an appropriate Forum, the property cannot be de-sealed. The learned Single Judge also has held in paragraph 6 that the prayer sought in the writ petition cannot, in view of the disputed facts and circumstances, be granted. Consequently, it was held by the learned Single Judge that the property cannot be de-sealed and possession cannot be handed over in favour of the appellant. Since the House Tax file also reveals that both of them were not the owner of the property in question, therefore, independent and other evidence shall have to be led to establish ownership as also on the question of possession.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the property should not be de-sealed. We accordingly confirm the order dated 16th April, 2007.

(Emphasis supplied)

In the order dated 16 April, 2007, the court had recorded the stand of the MCD that the house tax records had revealed that neither the petitioner-Mr. Gulzar Ahmed nor Mr. Naseem Pathan-respondent 3 herein, was the owner of the property in question. The nature of the documents filed by the respondent No. 3 before the MCD also did not support the claim of title of the respondent No. 3.

It is also noteworthy that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were fully aware of the claim of the petitioner inasmuch as the prior writ petition had been contested by them. I find that no notice has been given to the petitioner to contest the claim set up by the respondent No. 3 before the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. There is, thus, substance in the grievance set up by the petitioner that the respondents had acted mala fide.

The newly added private respondents have relied on registered documents of title in favour of their predecessor in interest. These respondents have filed objections based on their claim before the MCD on 19th of April 2007. These objections have also not been considered before passing the order dated 29th of June, 2007 by the MCD.

For all these reasons, the order dated 29th June, 2007 passed by the MCD is based on no material whatsoever and is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. The MCD has failed to comply with the directions of this Court in the order dated 16th April, 2007 which stands affirmed by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 30th July, 2007 holding that the property should not be desealed.

In view of the above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed.

The order dated 29th June, 2007 is hereby set aside and quashed. A direction is issued to the MCD to forthwith seal the premises No. 6342-6343/XI, Quresh Nagar, Qusabpura, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.

The matter cannot end here. I find that the respondent No. 3 has taken contradictory stands and made false pleadings. It has caused valuable court time to be unnecessarily wasted.

The respondent No. 2 has acted totally contrary to law, has ignored the material before it and the directions of the court.

Thus, respondent Nos. 2 & 3 shall be liable for punitive costs which in the present matter are quantified at Rs. 25000/- each, which shall be apportioned by these respondents between the Delhi High Court Legal Services Authority and the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre. The costs shall be deposited within a period of two weeks from today.