Full Text
Translation output
$-28 I
26.06.2013
Present: Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mi-K. Datta and Mr
Manish Srivastava, Advocate.
CM No. 9549/2013 (Exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 4049/2013 & CM 9548/2013 (Stay)
The petitioner is a company providing utility service in parts ofDelhi.
The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 06.06.2013 passed by the permanent Lok Adalat seeking the attendance ofthe Head ofthe Department of Enforcement Cell. The petitioner has contended that it is represented before the Lok Adalat by duly authorised officers and in these circumstances, the direction for senior officers to attend in person are unwarranted. i
This Court is inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that at this stage, summoning senior officers may not be apposite and conducive| to the conciliatory efforts being undertaken by parties before the Lok Adalat.
Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the Head of the Department is not required to attend the proceedings. However, I am assured by the petitioner that the directions for for filing written response as made by the Lok Adalat would be strictly followed and a duly authorised officer would be present for an effective disposal of the matter. The written response as directed will be filed within one week from today. Since the
I matter is listed tomorrow, it would be appropriate if a request for adjournment is made on behalf of the petitioner which is needless to say would be considered favourably by the Lok Adalat. Accordingly this writ
2013:DHC:7225 petition stands disposed of.
I am conscious of the fact that this writ petition is being disposed of without issuance notice to the respondent. However, this Court does not deem it fit to issue notice as it would unnecessarily delay the proceedings before the Lok Adalat and also needless burden the respondent as the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the conduct of the proceedings and no reliefagainst the respondent is prayed for. j
Dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
VACATION JUDGE
JUNE 26, 2013 rk
2013:DHC:7225
26.06.2013
Present: Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mi-K. Datta and Mr
Manish Srivastava, Advocate.
CM No. 9549/2013 (Exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 4049/2013 & CM 9548/2013 (Stay)
The petitioner is a company providing utility service in parts ofDelhi.
The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 06.06.2013 passed by the permanent Lok Adalat seeking the attendance ofthe Head ofthe Department of Enforcement Cell. The petitioner has contended that it is represented before the Lok Adalat by duly authorised officers and in these circumstances, the direction for senior officers to attend in person are unwarranted. i
This Court is inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that at this stage, summoning senior officers may not be apposite and conducive| to the conciliatory efforts being undertaken by parties before the Lok Adalat.
Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the Head of the Department is not required to attend the proceedings. However, I am assured by the petitioner that the directions for for filing written response as made by the Lok Adalat would be strictly followed and a duly authorised officer would be present for an effective disposal of the matter. The written response as directed will be filed within one week from today. Since the
I matter is listed tomorrow, it would be appropriate if a request for adjournment is made on behalf of the petitioner which is needless to say would be considered favourably by the Lok Adalat. Accordingly this writ
2013:DHC:7225 petition stands disposed of.
I am conscious of the fact that this writ petition is being disposed of without issuance notice to the respondent. However, this Court does not deem it fit to issue notice as it would unnecessarily delay the proceedings before the Lok Adalat and also needless burden the respondent as the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the conduct of the proceedings and no reliefagainst the respondent is prayed for. j
Dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
VACATION JUDGE
JUNE 26, 2013 rk
2013:DHC:7225
JUDGMENT