Lt Col CPC Nath                                            C 679 Sarita Vihar, New Delhi 110044

                                                                        Phone: 91 11 694 8083, 981 020 2680

                                                                        Email: nath@computer.org,

                                                                        6 May  2002

To

 Mr Ajai Raj Sharma, Chief of Police, Delhi

 

LEGAL ACTION NOTICE

 

Sir,

I am pained to send you this legal action notice (not a mandatory one but in fulfillment of the Citizen’s Charter you put up on your site) before I knock at the doors of the High Court of Delhi to protect me against crime committed against me. Law of the land protects my rights, but your force has failed to live up to the Mission you have given them.

 

MISSION OF DELHI POLICE

The purpose of

the Delhi Police is to

uphold the law fairly and firmly;

to prevent crime; to pursue and bring to justice

those who break the law;

to protect, help and reassure the people;

and to be seen to do all this

with integrity, common sense and sound judgment.

 

Your SHO (at Sarita Vihar) failed me. He failed to record the FIR against a crime I reported.  Your Deputy Commissioner of Police  at Haus Khas has failed me because he failed to act on the complaint I personally met him to hand over. The reason given by his staff is “We get 400 complaints a day and we have no time to act on all of them!” They both

 Failed to uphold the law fairly and firmly;

Failed to Prevent crime being committed;

Failed to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law

Failed to to protect, help and reassure the people;

and  failed to be seen to do all this

with integrity, common sense and sound judgment.

 

Fortunately, the law of the land is in my favor as can be seen in the enclosed documents. Instead of you and your force protecting me against a criminal act, I am getting ready to take the criminals to the court for their criminal acts and you for your forces failing to live up to your mission you have proudly declared in your web site.

 

 

The Delhi Police presents its Citizens’ Charter for the residents of the capital and it would be of immense help to us if you inform us about non-compliance of any term of the charter.

I hereby inform you about non-compliance of the terms of the charter.

 

Please take this as a Legal notice (not a mandatory one) before I file my writ petition in the Delhi high court shortly. Your officers have failed you!

It is real sad that what a beat police should have solved in 5 minutes of receiving a call is finally reaching the doors of the Delhi High court after umpteen petitions after petition to the authorities.

 

 

 

Thanking You,

Respectfully Yours,

 

Sd/=

Lt Col CPC Nath (Retd)

 

 

 

Lt Col CPC Nath                                            C 679 Sarita Vihar, New Delhi 110044

                                                                        Phone: 91 11 694 8083, 981 020 2680

                                                                        Email: nath@computer.org,

                                                                        14 January 2001

 

 

To

Deputy Commissioner of Police Traffic, South District, New Delhi

 

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT : OFFENCE UNDER DELHI MUNCIPAL CORPORATION ACT 1957  & CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

Sir,

I have the honor to report the following for your corrective action.

 

Statement of Facts:

  1. I had lodged an FIR against Mr. H Dutt, C 562 Sarita Vihar, New Delhi with SHO Sarita Vihar, New Delhi on 20 Dec 2001.
  2. The Police Station Sarita Vihar did not register the FIR and failed to provide me the copy of the FIR and also failed to prevent the continued commission of the crime.
  3. SHO Sarita Vihar has erred grievously in this matter in view of the following:

Authority: Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC Act) 1957

Legal Requirement

Illegal Action

DMC Act 1957 Section 299 (2)

To close a public street vesting with the MCD, previous sanction of the Corporation is required.

No sanction of the Corporation was given.

DMC Act 1957

Section 299 (2)

Corporation shall by notice publish as per bylaws give reasonable opportunity to the residents likely to be affected by such closure to make suggestions or objections with respect to such closure

No such notice was given by the Corporation

DMC Act 1957 Section 299 (2)

Corporation shall consider all suggestions or objections which may be made within one month from the date of the publication of the said notice

No such consideration of suggestion or objections was taken.

DMC Act 1957 Section 303

Commissioner only can take action to close the public street, provided that the Commissioner shall not take action without the sanction of the Corporation in cases under clause.

 

Mr. H Dutt has taken law in his own hands

DMC Act 1957 Section 320 (1)

Section 320. Prohibition of structures or fixtures which cause obstruction in streets- (1) No person shall, except with the permissions of the Commissioner granted in this behalf, erect or set up any wall, fence, rail, post, step, booth or other structure whether fixed or movable or whether of a permanent or temporary nature, or any fixture in or upon any street so as to form an obstruction to, or an encroachment upon, or a projection over, or to occupy any portion of such street, channel, drain, well or tank

Mr. H Dutt has taken law in his own hands and closed the public streets in Sarita Vihar Pocket C for free flow of traffic from 30 Nov 2000 by construction of barriers and gates which are kept closed.

DMC Act 1957 Section 466 A  & Criminal Procedure Code

SHO, Police station is required to register an FIR against a criminal offender who commits an offence under Code of Criminal Procedure.  Under Section 466A of the Act, Certain offences to be cognizable-The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply to an offence under sub-section (1) of section 320

SHO, Sarita Vihar Police Station failed to record the FIR given on 20 Dec 2001.  Criminal offence was committed on 30 Nov 2001 and continues to be committed till date. People against whom the offence is committed are suffering the consequences of the offence for last 7 weeks.

DMC Act 1957 Section 475

It shall be the duty of all police officers to give immediate information to the commissioner (MCD) of the commission of, or the attempt to commit any offence against this Act

SHO Sarita Vihar failed to provide immediate information to the Commissioner MCD though this requirement was pointed out to the SHO through the request to lodge the FIR on 20 Dec 2001

Motor Vehicles Act (MVA) 1988 Section115 Power to restrict the use of vehicle

The State Government or any authority authorized in this behalf by the State Government, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience, or because of the nature of any road or bridge, may by notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit or restrict, subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified in the notification, the driving of motor vehicles or of any specified class or description of motor vehicles or the use of trailers either generally in a specified area or on a specified road and when any such prohibition or restriction is imposed, shall cause appropriate traffic signs to be placed or erected under section 116 at suitable places:

 

No notice in the Official Gazette was given, though the restriction/ denial lasted more than 1 month

MVA 1988 Section115.Power to restrict the use of vehicle

Provided that where any prohibition or restriction under this section is to remain in force for not more than one month, notification thereof in the Official Gazette shall not be necessary, but such local publicity as the circumstances may permit, shall be given of such prohibition or restriction.

 

No local publicity was given by the local authority of prohibition/ restriction prior to the completion of 1 month of this obstruction.

MVA 1988 Section 116. Subsection (1) Power to erect traffic signs.

 (1) (a) The State Government or any authority authorized in this behalf by the State Government may cause or permit traffic signs to be placed or erected in any public place for the purpose of bringing to public notice any speed limits fixed under sub-section (2) of section 112 or any prohibitions or restrictions imposed under section 115 or generally for the purposes of regulating motor vehicle traffic.

 

Mr. H Dutt was not authorized by the state government to place traffic signs.

MVA 1988 Section 116 Subsection (2)

(2) Traffic signs placed or erected under sub-section (1) for any purpose for which provision is made in the Schedule shall be of the size, color and type and shall have the meanings set forth in the Schedule, but the State Government or any authority empowered in this behalf by the State Government may make or authorize the addition to any sign set forth in the said Schedule, of transcriptions of the words, letters or figures thereon in such script as the State Government may think fit provided that the transcriptions shall be of similar size and color to the words, letters or figures set forth in the Schedule.

 

The unauthorized traffic sign placed by Mr. .H Dutt is not of the authorized size, color and type.

MVA1988 Section 116 Subsection (3)

(3) Except as a provided by sub-section (1), no traffic sign shall, after the commencement of this Act, be placed or erected on or near any road

The traffic sign was illegally placed Mr H Dutt after the commencement of the Act i.e. 1988

General

The fact that the one side effect of the offence may result in some good to society does not make the offence less of an offence under CPC, MCD Act and MVA, all combined.

Illegal closing of public street vesting with Delhi Municipal Corporation is purported to provide increased security does not make this less of a criminal offence. Even the security provided is bogus and is only an excuse to reduce traffic in front of the offender’s homes while redirecting traffic to long, and circuitous and accident prone by lanes of the colony.

The benefit of reducing traffic in front of the residences of office bearers of the RWA is too low a benefit compared to the cost to be paid by all the residents in terms of very high risk of abduction and kidnapping of school going children who are forced to wait in insecure areas outside the colony for the school buses, which are prevented from coming inside the colony, a privilege the colony had enjoyed for the last 12 years of its existence.
  1. The above clearly indicate that the Police was NOT acting for Law enforcement but was acting against the law. Thus the police has not only failed to record the FIR but also failed to report the matter to the Commissioner of MCD and thus the complainant and many other residents similarly placed are suffering the consequences of the criminal actions by Mr. H Dutt, C-562, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi 10044

 

Immediate Action Requested:

 

    1. Record the FIR as required under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
    2. Report the construction of the illegal structure or obstruction to the Commissioner, MCD.
    3. Clear the obstruction to allow free flow of traffic in these “public Streets”.
    4. Bring to book the offenders under Criminal Procedure Code Section 320 1) and Section 461 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and Motor Vehicle Act 1988.

 

 

Thanking you,

Yours Truly.

 

Lt Col CPC Nath (Retd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lt Col CPC Nath                                            C 679 Sarita Vihar, New Delhi 110044

                                                                        Phone: 91 11 694 8083, 981 020 2680

                                                                        Email: nath@computer.org,

20 Dec 2001

To

SHO, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi

 

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT : OFFENCE UNDER DELHI MUNCIPAL CORPORATION ACT 1957 (Act No. 66 of 1957)

 

Sir,

I have the honor to lodge the following FIR on the following offence under DELHI MUNCIPAL CORPORATION ACT

 

  1. Offence: Illegally Obstructing traffic in public streets inside Sarita Vihar by constructing barriers and gates which are locked /welded permanently and blocking public traffic 24 hours of the day on these “public street” vested under Delhi Municipal Corporation.
  2. Offenders :

·        Mr. H Dutt (President RWA C Pocket),

·        Mr. Pradeep Madhani, (General Secretary C Pocket RWA)

  1. Provisions of the Act above:
    1. Section 299 (2): With the previous sanction of the Corporation the Commissioner may permanently close the whole or any part of a public street: Provided that before according such sanction the Corporation shall by notice publish in the manner specified by bye-laws give reasonable opportunity to the residents likely to be affected by such closure to make suggestions or objections with respect to such closure and shall consider all such suggestions or objections which may be made within one month from the date of the publication of the said notice.
    2. Section 303. Power to prohibit use of public streets for certain kind of traffic-(1) The Commissioner Provided that the Commissioner shall not take action without the sanction of the Corporation in cases under clause (a) and without the sanction of the Standing Committee in cases under clause (c).(2) Notices of such prohibition as are imposed under sub-section (1) shall be posted in conspicuous places at or near both ends of public streets or portions thereof to which they relate, unless such prohibition applies generally to all public streets.
    3. Section 320. Prohibition of structures or fixtures which cause obstruction in streets-(1) No person shall, except with the permissions of the Commissioner granted in this behalf, erect or set up any wall, fence, rail, post, step, booth or other structure whether fixed or movable or whether of a permanent or temporary nature, or any fixture in or upon any street so as to form an obstruction to, or an encroachment upon, or a projection over, or to occupy any portion of such street, channel, drain, well or tank.(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to any erection or thing to which clause (c) sub-section (1) of section 325 applies.
    4. Section 461 Punishment for certain offences-2 [(1)] Whoever-(a) contravenes any provision of any of the sections, sub-sections, clauses, provisions or other provisions of this Act mentioned in the first column of the Table in the Twelfth Schedule; or(b) fails to comply with any order or direction lawfully given to him or any requisition lawfully made upon him under any of the said sections, sub-sections, clauses, provisos or other provisions, shall be punishable--(i) with fine which may extend to the amount, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to the amount specified in the fourth column of that Table for every day during which such contravention or failure continues after conviction for the fist such contravention or failure.
    5. Section 475. Duties of police officers-It shall be the duty of all police officers to give immediate information to the commissioner 1 [***] of the commission of, or the attempt to commit any offence against this Act or any rule, regulation or bye-law made there under and to assist all municipal officers and other municipal employees in the exercise of their lawful authority.

 

  1. Request: Please take IMMEDIATE action to
    1. Report immediate information to the Commissioner, Municipal Commissioner, MCD, Delhi. Under Section 475
    2. Clear the obstruction to allow free flow of traffic in these “public Streets”.
    3. Bring to book the offenders under the above Act Section 461.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

CPC Nath

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FROM

GATES & BARRIERS

 

  1. Public roads cannot be blocked. Only MCD Commissioner can do it after giving 1 Months notice and receiving objections from residents affected. The gates & barriers were put up in C Block  Sarita Vihar on the midnight of 30 November 2001 so that the residents could not prevent their erection.
  2. Local Police has NO authority under law to construct it, hence cannot give the right, which it does not have to another who wants to construct it. So conspiring with local SHO by inviting him as Chief guest in a Association party does NOT legitimize it.
  3. It is against LAW:  MCD Act, Motor Vehicle Act, Consumer Protection Act and Delhi High Court order.
  4. It is a cognizable offence (Crime under Criminal procedure Code) to obstruct public streets.
  5. Local police conniving with the criminals and their criminal activity is proved by the SHO refusing to file the FIR.
  6. It circumvents the law in the name of security.
  7. Residents have already paid for construction of these b roads (in the capital cost of the house) and pay for their maintenance through house tax to MCD
  8. Blocking of roads or no security are not exclusive choices. One can have security with out denying the residents use of the roads.
  9. Blocking a 50 ft road entry and exit and allowing traffic through 16 feet  service lanes can only be  conceived by selfish residents who conceal the hidden agenda  to save themselves from heavy traffic in front of their own houses.
  10. Gates & barriers tend to privatize public streets, giving undue power to one person (or persons) who live on a street while depriving the rest of the neighborhood a voice
  11. Unfair to other residents who use the street and paid as much in taxes for it as those who happen to live along it.
  12. They divide neighbors and neighborhoods. Even resident homes are blocked from their own garages!
  13. They cause resident drivers to lose time, increase driving distance, pollution and cost.
  14. It confuses visitors and lose time, increase driving distance, pollution and cost
  15. Life and property may be lost in crucial times when a fire tender or ambulance or emergency vehicle is delayed.
  16. Service vehicles, commercial vehicles and school buses are prevented easy access to the points requiring their service.
  17. Old, disabled and sick are denied easy access to facilities inside the colony and easy entry and exit.
  18. This has led to favoritism, capriciousness, unfounded claims of community support and maneuvers to elude and obscure dissenting voices.
  19. All this for false Security (there is no access control) and reduced traffic in front of the houses of RWA officials!
  20. RWA instead of coordinating civic amenities of residents has become a extra constitutional authority for harassment of residents in the name of maintenance of law and order! Residents pay taxes to the state for maintenance of a police force for this purpose.

PS: Freedom is not given, it is taken. Freedom is not lost, it is given away! If residents don’t rise for SOS (Save Our Streets), they will lose their soul to fight illegality, crime against themselves and save themselves from the schemers with their hidden agendas! 

 

 

 

Join me to file a writ in Delhi High Court. Costs will be paid by the criminals, in addition to damages!

 

nath@computer.org