D.P.Wadhwa - (1.)The petitioner says he is a lawyer and a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association. He filed this petition styling as habeas corpus writ petition on his visiting card which he says he presented at the residence of the Chief Justice who in turn sent him to a Single Judge of this Court. The petitioner knocked the door of the learned Single Judge at ll.00 p.m. on 13 May, 1993. On his visiting card the petitioner wrote as under:- "MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIP, The respected father of undersigned aged 82 and in coma (himself still Supreme Court Bar Member) his respected ailing mother aged 86, his sister-in-law (Member High Court Bar) and his sister (Member High Court Bar) and three small nephews trapped on second storey of demolished building (illegally demolished in spite of stay without any notice or warning) and not being rescrued. So the undersigned has come for moving Habeas Corpus Writ before his respected father collapses without water, medicine, electricity, food and sewerage. Sd/- 15/5/93. "
(2.)However, at the residence of the learned Single Judge he presented a petition written in hand. There are four respondents, namely, Delhi Administration, the Police Commissioner, the Municipal Commissioner, and the Station House Officer of Subzi Mandi police Station, Delhi. He prefixed this petition saying that he has been a member of the High Court Bar since 1970, his father a member of the Supreme Court Bar, his sister-in-law member of the High Court Bar and his sister a member of the Supreme Court as well as High Court Bars. He said High Court Bar bad passed a unanimous resolution disapproving his illegal harassment which resolution he filed with this petition. He said his family had house No. 2506 and 2670 at Basti Panjabian, Subzi mandi, Delhi, where he had his office-cum-residence and that in spite of a certain stay order the said property was partly demolished on 3 May, 1993 and some of his assets also stolen. To support that, the petitioner filed a letter dated 7 May. 1993 written by him to the President of the Delhi Bar Association. Then the petitioner refers to the letter written by the President, Delhi Bar Association, to the Police Commissioner. The petitioner also filed a copy of the phonogram sent to the Prime Minister and the Presidents of the Supreme Court and High Court Bar Associations as well as to the Police Commissioner. The petitioner also filed certain photographs showing the properties as existing before the demolition operation on 3 May, 1993. The main grievance of the petitioner was that on 13 May, 1993 further demolition took place without any notice or warning and inmates were not allowed to come out. He said his father had been recently discharged from the hospital and his mother was also ailing. Both his father and mother, sister and sister-in-law with three small children were trapped in the house without water, food, medicine, electricity and sewerage. He also said his father was in coma and was passing stools in the bed and was likely to collapse at any time. The petitioner then said he would be filing a detailed writ petition later on but for the time being he said that stranded persons be rescued from the second floor of the house where they were trapped without any outlet. The learned Single Judge recorded that the petitioner stated that the stair-case leading to the second floor of the house had been partly demolished and partly blocked with the result that the persons trapped therein could not be brought to the ground level from the second floor. The learned Single Judge directed the respondents to take steps to evacuate all persons on the second floor of House No. 2670, Basti Panjabian, Subzimandi, Delhi, to safety of the ground floor forthwith. The matter was then listed in Court on the following day.
(3.)The Bench dealing with the matter recorded the order of the learned Single Judge passed earlier and directed that if that order had not been implemented already, the same be implemented forthwith and to report compliance on 17 May, 1993. The petitioner also filed an application (Crl.Misc. 313/93) praying for appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the site. The Court issued notice on this application. On 17 May, 1993 this Court directed that the members of the family of Mr. D. S. Dalal, father of the petitioner, who were staying in premises bearing No. 2670, 2505 and 2506 to hnve free ingress and egress thereto. Municipal Corporation of Dslhi (M.C.D.) was directed to stop the demolition work for 24 hours and then to proceed, in any case, in accordance with law thereafter. This order was passed without any prejudice to any rights or contentions of either of the parties. On 20 May, 1993 an application (Crl. Misc. 332/93) was presented to the Court and the Court recorded that father of the petitioner had expired and fixed the application for 26 May, 1993, the date already fixed. However, on the same day another application (Crl. Misc. 334/93) was filed by the petitioner himself which was taken up at 2.00 P.M. on that day. In this application the petitioner said that certain ceremony was to be performed in connection with the death of his father. The Court referred to its earlier orders and said that it was desirable that there would be no interference with the performance of the ceremony which had to be performed by the family of the petitioner, and the person and properties of his family should be protected till the next "purnima". On 27 May, 1993 the Court heard the arguments of the petitioner at length. He wished to file some additional documents during course of the day. He was permitted to do so, and the case was adjourned to 28 May, 1993. It appears, however, that the matter was again taken up on 27 May, 1993 when the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner was placed on record. Reply was also filed on behalf of the M.C.D. on the same day in the registry. When the matter was taken up on 28 May, 1993 the Bench directed that the matter be listed before another Bench. That is how the matter has come before us. Meanwhile, during summer vacation the petitioner filed yet another application (CrI.Misc. 383/93) on which the learned Vacation Judge ordered that order dated 17 May, 1993 providing free ingress and egress to the premises in question and the order dated 20 May, 1993 for protection of the petitioner and the property of the members of his family would continue till the next date which was 5 July, 1993. On this date we recorded that petitioner wanted time to file amended writ petition and adjourned the matter to 15 July, 1993. On this date, the petitioner again wanted more time to file an application seeking amendment of the writ petition and the matter stood adjourned to 1 September, 1993. On this date the petitioner said that some write matter was listed in the Supreme Court for 3 September, 1993 for final disposal and that we should adjourn this matter again and petitioner would seek those reliefs in the present petition which were not to be granted by the Supreme Court. We declined his request. He addressed arguments for over 2 hours.