Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM No. 14069/2013 & W.P.(C) 4434/2013 ALL INDIA VSNL/ TCL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION THR ITS.
GENERAL SECRETARY Petitioner
Through; Mr Girijesh Pandey, Adv.
CM No. 14069/2013 & W.P.(C) 4434/2013 ALL INDIA VSNL/ TCL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION THR ITS.
GENERAL SECRETARY Petitioner
Through; Mr Girijesh Pandey, Adv.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr Amritpal Singh, CGSC with Mr M.P. Singh, Ms Ranjana Singh, Adv.
Mr Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with i Mr Rishi Agrawala, Mr Rohit Gupta, Mr Umang Gupta, Advs.
Through: Mr Amritpal Singh, CGSC with Mr M.P. Singh, Ms Ranjana Singh, Adv.
Mr Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with i Mr Rishi Agrawala, Mr Rohit Gupta, Mr Umang Gupta, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
09.10.2013 This writ petition is the second round of litigation by the very same petitioner in respect of the very same subject matter. This would be evident by comparison ofthe prayers, in the present writ
-Si petition with prayers in the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C)
2462/2013. The order dated 01.05.2013 passed in the earlier writ petition clearly held as under;-
"5. To us, it appears that the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the alleged violation of the SHA and SPA, is not for this Court to go into, in the facts and circumstances ofthis case. It would be appropriate for respondent no. 1 UOI to ensure compliance of its agreement. There appears to be no inaction on the part ot
2013:DHC:7458-DB respondent no.l. We hence, dispose ofthis petition with liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to Union of India. The petition is accordingly disposed of"
The only recourse that was permitted to the petitioner was to make an appropriate representation to the Union ofIndia. It appears that the petitioner has made such representation on 14.05.2013.
Apparently that representation has not yet been disposed of by respondent no.l. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.l states that in case the representation has not been disposed of the same would be disposed ofwithin reasonable period oftime. We feel that itwould be appropriate ifthe respondent no.l disposes ofthe said representation with communication to the petitioner within aperiod of eight weeks.
With these observations the writ petition stands disposed of
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 09, 2013 kb
2013:DHC:7458-DB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
09.10.2013 This writ petition is the second round of litigation by the very same petitioner in respect of the very same subject matter. This would be evident by comparison ofthe prayers, in the present writ
-Si petition with prayers in the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C)
2462/2013. The order dated 01.05.2013 passed in the earlier writ petition clearly held as under;-
"5. To us, it appears that the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the alleged violation of the SHA and SPA, is not for this Court to go into, in the facts and circumstances ofthis case. It would be appropriate for respondent no. 1 UOI to ensure compliance of its agreement. There appears to be no inaction on the part ot
2013:DHC:7458-DB respondent no.l. We hence, dispose ofthis petition with liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to Union of India. The petition is accordingly disposed of"
The only recourse that was permitted to the petitioner was to make an appropriate representation to the Union ofIndia. It appears that the petitioner has made such representation on 14.05.2013.
Apparently that representation has not yet been disposed of by respondent no.l. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.l states that in case the representation has not been disposed of the same would be disposed ofwithin reasonable period oftime. We feel that itwould be appropriate ifthe respondent no.l disposes ofthe said representation with communication to the petitioner within aperiod of eight weeks.
With these observations the writ petition stands disposed of
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 09, 2013 kb
2013:DHC:7458-DB
JUDGMENT