EKTA WELFARE SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are constrained to observe that our protective order of 23/6/2023 was obtained on a complete misrepresentation and suppression. The Petition itself proceeds on a material misrepresentation about the facts.

(2.) In this very Petition, we passed a detailed order on 8/2/2023. We noted that the decision of the Supreme Court regarding the eviction of persons on Railway lands. We inter alia directed the authorities to follow the protocol and directions as set out by the Supreme Court. We sought more information about a rehabilitation policy and then restricted demolition until the next date if they were in contravention of the orders of the Supreme Court. The matter was then mentioned before us few days ago and we were told by a praecipe of 23/6/2023 that there was now a fresh eviction notice issued by the MCGM threatening eviction all over again. We passed an order on 23/6/2023 and said that the MCGM eviction notice was prima facie contrary to our 8/2/2023 order. Indeed it was, but what we are not told at that time and which has now emerged from the Affidavit in Reply filed by the Union of India and to which our attention was not drawn on 23/6/2023, is that these very Petitioners have already filed a Suit in the City Civil Court at Dindoshi. This is LC Suit No. 183 of 2021. There is no mention in this Petition of the Suit. The 7th Defendant to that Suit is SPARC, a NGO (Society for Promotion of Area Resources Centre). It has been steadily working over many decades with oustees and a structured programme for relocation and rehousing. Paragraph 30 of this Plaint makes wild allegations against everybody from municipal officials to corporators and even the NGO in question. The suggestion seems to be that it is these illegal trespassers on Railway line who can do no wrong but everybody else is, in the words of the Plaint, 'hand in glove'. But the point is that the Suit of 2021 ought to have been mentioned in the Writ Petition itself. It ought to have been mentioned that there was no ad-interim relief obtained in the City Civil Court Suit. This has been suppressed by the Petitioners (we do not blame their Advocates). We do not agree that when it comes to persons who claim that they are poor etc that there is a different standard for candour and that the requirement of a complete disclosure of all material factors does not apply to such persons or that it is confined to other entities. We see no reason why a party who comes to Court with such a suppression should be entitled to any protective orders.

(3.) Even on the Petitioners' own showing in the Plaint, a survey had been carried out. Indeed, the plaint indicates that there has been more than one survey but every time there is a survey there were more encroachments and then after one removal, the cycle started all over again. We have already noted that there are proceedings under the Public Premises Act.