Aastha Thakur
Published on: 04 December 2022 at 18:31 IST
Delhi High Court recently while setting aside an order observed that court symbolizes the conscience-keeper of democracy. The court cannot turn a blind eye when the end of justice is being bulldozed in broad daylight.
The single bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with the impugned order of lease deed of a charitable hospital built on public land.
The high court ruled that forcing an institution to undergo the hardships of having the lease deed revoked and having the property seized while assisting in advancing the noble cause of operating a charitable hospital on public property is an outrage of justice.
“Law, which should be an instrument for ensuring welfare, is being reduced to a tool of atrocity in the instant case. Being a constitutional court and the conscience-keeper of democracy, this court cannot turn a blind eye when the ends of justice are being bulldozed in broad daylight,”
The court further add that the institution purpose is to impart the functions in welfare of society and any undue harassment being caused to it will lead to mayhem and will be held contrary to rule of law.
Khosla Medical Institute, a society that had established a hospital and medical research facility in Shalimar Bagh, had filed an appeal, contesting the trial court’s decision to uphold the 1995 Delhi Development Authority order that had ordered it to give up possession of the property and cancel its lease.
After concluding that the institute had violated the terms of the lease deed by giving the property to third parties by accepting them as new members, the authorities had the lease deed revoked.
The high court allowed the appeal filed by institute and cancel the lease deed allowed by the trial court, saying, “The order dated December 7, 1995, cancelling/terminating the lease deed of the appellant institute is also set aside, since the finding of the concerned authority was not supported or substantiated by any conclusive document.”
It said in the absence of evidence substantiating that the terms of the lease deed were violated, the basis for cancellation did not survive.
The high court said the trial court also failed to consider that there was no conclusive evidence or document on record to establish that the title and ownership of the institute were transferred to a third party since there was neither any conveyance deed, title deed or any other document to show that the property, land or the institute was transferred.
The court remarked that mere advertisement does not implicate that the institute has concluded the sale and even the affidavit of the property agent was not verified at the time of examination of evidence.