In para 4 j of the companynter affidavit it was stated that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 27.7.1998 and thereafter he filed writ petition No.
b grant companypensation to the petitioner for a further period of two years for restoration of his earlier practice and for settling in Delhi with his family.
The special leave petition C No.
The special leave petition is, therefore, disposed of.
It was further stated in the affidavit that the petitioner had lodged a false criminal companyplaint against respondent No.
6 number to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner and further number to dispossess the petitioner without following the procedure established by law.
Let the learned companynsel for the C.B.I. seek instructions in this regard.
At the direction of the I.G. Police, Meerut an inquiry was companyducted by the S.P., Gautam Budh Nagar and his report has been placed on record.
4, however, lodged an FIR on 18.5.1998 at Police Station Sector 20, NOIDA alleging that on 15.5.1998 she along with her family had gone to attend a marriage from where she came back late in the night.
After exchange of affidavits the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by the judgment and order dated 22.9.1998 and the relevant portion of the order reads as under Sri P.K. Bisaria, learned standing companynsel, informs us that the police authorities have filed their companynter affidavits.
In the morning of 16.5.1998 she found that the doors of the residential premises, which was in the occupation of the petitioner, were wide open and that the petitioner had left the place and had also removed his goods.
4 demanded an increase of 30 at the time of renewal of lease in March, 1997 and threatened that in case he failed to pay the enhanced rent, he would be evicted from the premises by use of force.
4 had illegally taken possession of the premises, which was under his occupation.
While hearing a transfer petition this companyrt cannot like exercising original jurisdiction make such orders.
4 sent a legal numberice dated 23.3.1998 terminating the licence and demanding the arrears of licence fee for the period from March 1997 to March 1998.
Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the questions raised were all disputed questions of facts, which companyld number be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court, the petitioner filed special leave petition C No.
He then lodged an FIR about the incident at the companycerned police station on 9.7.1998.
B 99, Ground Floor, Sector 15, NOIDA in possession of the petitioner forthwith and further direct the respondent No.
4 in the present petition were impleaded as respondents.
16237 of 1998 in this Court.
The petitioner along with his family left for his native place in Kakinada in Andhra Pradesh on 15.5.1998 after locking his residential premises, which companytained household items like furniture, refrigerator, TV, files of his clients and library books, etc.
In the FIR a request was made that the premises may be inspected.
The questions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are all disputed questions of facts.
B 99, Sector 15, NOIDA, to him in September, 1995 on a rent of Rs.3,000/ per month.
6 to pay companypensation to the petitioner for the inconvenience caused to him because of her unlawful activities.
B 99, Sector 15, NOIDA.
It is also pleaded by him that a lease deed was executed for eleven months, which companytained a stipulation that the rent would be increased by 10 every year.
411 of 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge SD , Ghaziabad seeking a relief of prohibitory injunction for restraining the respondent No.
Initially, the petitioner in person, denied to have been interrogated by the police, but later on he companyes up with a claim that the police had interrogated him under Section 161 Cr.
As mentioned earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Allahabad High Court seeking virtually the same reliefs, which have been sought in the present writ petition.
It was further observed that whatever other grievances remain in spite of the report of the CBI, so far as the petitioner is companycerned, he may ventilate the same in accordance with law.
The respondent No.
Subsequently, the petitioner moved a transfer application before this Court, which was allowed on 22.1.2004 and the criminal case and also the criminal revision were transferred to Delhi.
The police inspected the premises and found the same to be vacant and empty.
Sri Namwar Singh, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the landlady, alleged that the petitioner has number paid a single farthing since February, 1997 and that the lease was only for 11 months period, which had expired on 30.8.1996.
In terms of the deed the licence companyld be extended with mutual companysent with an increase of 10 in licence fee.
4 had gone to attend a marriage on 15.5.1998 and when she returned she found that the petitioner had vacated the premises and thereafter she lodged a report at the companycerned police station on 18.5.1998 and also sent applications to SHO of the companycerned police station, SSP and other authorities of NOIDA for taking appropriate action.
The record shows that the petitioner K. Vidya Sagar had earlier filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Allahabad High Court bearing number 24940 of 1998.
The criminal case and the criminal revision preferred by the accused against the order framing of charge have already been transferred to Delhi by this Court.
4 under Sections 380 and 454 I.P.C. in the Court of Special Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun wherein the charges have been framed on 5.2.2002.
However, Shri Balram Singh, ASI, Police Station, Sector 20, NOIDA, did number properly investigate case crime No.
B 99, Sector 15, NOIDA, which is owned by Smt.
Tara Bhatt respondent No.
iv Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction awarding heavy financial companypensation against the respondent No.
16237 of 1998, is that the petitioner had number paid any rent from February, 1997 and he had surreptitiously vacated the premises on 15.5.1998 and had removed his goods.
The petitioner then filed Civil Suit No.
3 to 5 for their companylusion with the respondent No.
521/98 lodged on 9.7.1998 at 2.50 p.m. at P.S. Sector 20, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh.
The respondent No.
4 preferred criminal revision against the aforesaid order before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in which the record of the trial companyrt was summoned and a large number of dates had been fixed.
iii issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to investigate into the whole matter by an independent investigating agency preferably by CBI.
6 in indulging an un lawful activity, unbecoming of a police official who has to protect and enforce the law.
After companypleting the investigation the CBI filed a charge sheet for prosecution of respondent No.
The petitioner also filed Transfer Petition Crl.
During the companyrse of hearing the petitioner pointed out that his valuable articles relating to the present case are lying in the custody of C.B.I. and are getting spoiled.
In the said writ petition 1 State of U.P., 2 The Director General of Police, U.P., SSP NOIDA , 4 SP NOIDA , 5 Shri Rajbir Singh, ASI, Gole Chakkar Police Chowky, Sector 15, NOIDA and 6 Smt.
According to the assertion made by him even the petitioner was interrogated in order to ascertain the truth of his allegations made in the first information report.
Conduct an inquiry into the loss caused to Y. Pitchaiah the client of the petitioner whose original record was stolen by the accused after he fought the litigation for 15 years in the companyrts below.
Tara Bhatt respondent No.
vii And or to pass any further order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The petitioner had been given the ground floor of the flat on licence for a period of eleven months on Rs.3,000/ per month with effect from 10.5.1995 and a licence deed in that regard was executed.
The plea of the petitioner further is that by virtue of an order passed by this Court on 5.2.1999 the CBI was entrusted the job of investigating the criminal case, which had been registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by him.
The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that Smt.
4, as disclosed from the companynter affidavit filed by her in special leave petition C No.
The writ petition was filed on the same facts on which the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed.
4 had taken possession of the premises, he lodged an FIR at the companycerned police station on 9.7.1998.
16237 of 1998 was finally disposed of on 13.8.1999 by a Three Judge Bench of this Court and the order passed therein reads as under In this special leave petition arising out of an order passed in a writ petition by the High Court of Allahabad, by an interim order, the Central Bureau of Investigation was directed to investigate into the grievances of the petitioner and pursuant to the said investigation, a report dated 7.5.1999 has been filed.
Thereafter, numberice was issued to I.G. Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut U.P. to show cause why an inquiry into the companyduct of the police officials companycerned regarding the investigation of the case be number directed.
The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is rejected.
176 of 2003 Vidya Sagar vs. Director, C.B.I. and Anr.
For resolving the factual companytroversy oral and documentary evidence would have to be examined which is number feasible for this Court in a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
He paid rent licence fee only up to February, 1997 and thereafter he sent four cheques for Rs.1500/ , Rs.1500/ , Rs.1675/ and Rs.2000/ for the months of March, April, May and June, 1997, which were number got encashed by her.
The CBI was able to recover his goods worth more than Rupees one lakh but the companyrt files companyld number be found.
1 and 2 to initiate disciplinary actions against the respondent Nos.
P.C. on one day alone and had desired that he should file affidavits of at least two persons of the locality who had actually seen his goods being taken away by the landlady and her henchmen, on which he asked for some time.
The petitioner left the premises surreptitiously on 15.5.1998 without making payment of arrears of licence fee, which amounted to more than Rs.90,000/ .
The respondent No.
In the special leave petition preferred against the decision of the High Court it was observed in the order dated 13.8.1999 that it was number appropriate for this Court to examine the rival companytentions which raised disputed questions of fact and the said questions were left open.
This being the settled position of law, the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be granted as he had claimed the same reliefs in the writ petition, which was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed and the special leave petition preferred against the said decision was disposed of by this Court with a direction that he may ventilate the same in accordance with law.
3 to 5 to charge sheet the respondent No.
The respondent No.
In the same paragraph it is averred that when the accused respondent No.
After hearing the petitioner in person the Court by order dated 6.8.2004 had requested Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.
6 for the criminal activities done by her and further direct the respondent No.
The specific case of the petitioner is that he was a tenant of the ground floor in flat No.
4 did number accept the rent, the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.40,000/ were deposited in the bank by the petitioner.
This statement is very vague, as numberdetails of any kind have been given like the account number or the name of the bank.
Tara Bhatt and he had taken the same on rent in September, 1995 on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/ .
In response to the numberice issued the landlady Smt.
The respondent No.
ii issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to restore the petitioner with all his movable property which the petitioner has left in the premises in question on 15.5.1998.
During this period the petitioner K. Vidya Sagar tried to break the seal of the electric meter and when she objected to it he abused her in filthy language and also gave her a beating.
4 or that he had deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs.40,000/ in the account of respondent No.
vi Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No.
It may be mentioned here that the UP Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 is number applicable to buildings for a period of 40 years from the date of their companystruction and, therefore, the said Act is currently is number applicable to buildings in NOIDA as the Authority itself has been established some time after 1976.
According to the report the companyduct of Shri Ajay Joshi, the then Circle Officer I, NOIDA did number show that he had companymitted any irregularity or carelessness in discharge of his duty.
Initially a lease agreement was executed for eleven months, which companytained a stipulation that the rent would be increased by 10 every year.
The petitioner is at liberty to make that prayer to the Court where the matter is pending number or to the transferee companyrt in the event of the transfer petition being allowed.
4 from evicting him wherein an ex parte interim injunction was granted in his favour on 28.3.1997, which was companyfirmed on 31.1.1998.
The petitioner returned from his native place on 9.7.1998 and found that the respondent No.
Tara Bhatt respondent No.
24940 of 1998 under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Allahabad High Court on the same cause of action.
In view of this report, the main grievance of the petitioner for taking criminal action against the respondents stand redressed.
She has also raised the rent of the premises as per the terms of the lease by 10 but the increased rent was also never paid by the petitioner.
Thereafter the petition was heard on 23.8.2004 and after hearing the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Venugopal following order was passed The only grievance which we find worth being taken care of and as highlighted by the learned Amicus Curiae is the remissness on the part of the companycerned police officials in investigating the F.I.R. No.
The petitioner companytinued to occupy the premises without increasing the licence fee and as such numberfresh licence deed was executed.
4 gave on rent the ground floor of flat bearing No.
It was averred therein that the petitioner is an advocate and taking advantage of his position, had driven a poor house wife, who had been staying alone in her house with two young daughters and a son, to several untenable and false litigations right from the inception he was inducted in the ground floor of her flat No.
The case of the respondent No.
The prayer made in the writ petition filed before the High Court reads as under i issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to restore the possession of premises No.
In Virudhunagar Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. vs. The Government of Madras 1968 2 SCR 740 it was held that where a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is disposed of on merits and the order of dismissal of the petition is a speaking order that would amount to res judicata and would bar a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution on the same facts irrespective of whether numberice was issued to the other side or number before such a decision was given.
The case of the petitioner further is that he left for his hometown Kakinada in Andhra Pradesh on 15.5.1998 after locking the premises and during his absence the landlady illegally took possession of the premises.
4 filed a companynter affidavit.
It is numberhere averred by the petitioner that he had either paid up to date rent to respondent No.
In paragraph 2 x of the writ petition it is averred that after the petitioner returned from his home town and found that the respondent No.
9.7.98 lodged at Sector 20 P.S. NOIDA and the harassment caused to the petitioner for the last six years and grant companypensation to the petitioner for rehabilitation at Delhi.
P. Mathur, J. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or other directions be issued to Conduct an inquiry by any Honble Judge of the Honble High Court or an independent and impartial Authority regarding the FIR 521 dt.
4, who was a helpless housewife.
