D.K. Srivastava v. Union of India & Ors.

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? f NO. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SUNIL GAUR. J. l. C.M. No.9505/2010 (under Section 151 of CPC bv Petitioner ) in Rev.Pet. No.204l2010

1. In the Review petition, C.M. No.9505/2010 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking directions to the local Police Station to register FIR Rev. Pet. No.20412010, c.M. No.9505/2010 (Direction), c.M. No.6l6120r l (Deray), C.M. No.737l201I (Delay), C.M. No.76ll201I (Delay) in W.P. (C) No.l1600/2009 Page 1 2011:DHC:17172 I r (:\ IA against Respondent No. 3 to 6 for various offences under the Indian Penal Code. Upon perusal of this application, I find that the directions sought for are not required to be issued, as the basis of this application is presumptuous. This application is out rightly dismissed. ll. C.M. No.737l2011 (Delav bv Respondent No. 3). C.M. No.761/2011 (Delav bv Respondent No. 7) in Rev.Pet. No.204l2010

2. Since C.M. No.61612011 seeking condonation of delay is already filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 to 7, therefore, separate applications by Respondent 3 and 7 for the same relief are superfluous and are infact rendered infructuous in view of filing of C.M. No.61612011. Accordingly these two applications are disposed of as infructuous. lll. C.M. No.616/2011 (Condonation of delav bv Respondent No. 2 to 7) in Rev.Pet. No.204/2010

3. There is delay of twenty six days in filing the Review petition. Order of 11tn September, 2009 under review purportedly came to the knowledge of these Respondents on 28th January, 2O1O and accordingly, on 8th February, 2010 certified copy of the order was applied for and it was ready on 17th February,2010. The procedural time consumed for obtaining the requisite permission to seek review sought, is the reason put forth for the delay occasioned. In reply to this application, Petitioner has asserted that on 14th October, 2009, Petitioner's representation was illegally rejected by these Respondents, in utter violation of the HUDCo's Rules and Regulations and the delay is of about seven months, which is inordinate Rev. Pet. No.204l2010, C.M. No.9505/2010 (Direction), C.M.No.616/2011 (Detay), c.lvl. No.737l201 I (Delay), c.114. No.76ll2011 (Delay) in w.P. (c) No.il600/2009 Page 2 t /.[1] and in March, 2010, aforesaid Respondents and the Petitioner had got the information for the first time about the issuance of the Notification that Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (HUDCO) matters are to be heard by the Administrative Service Tribunals.

4. Upon hearing both the sides, and in view of the fact that jurisdictional question has fallen for consideration in the Review petition, the delay occasioned in preferring the Review petition cannot be said to be either deliberate nor inordinate. Accordingly, delay of 26 days in filing the accompanying Review petition is condoned. This application is disposed of. Rev.Pet. No.204l2010

5. On the jurisdictional question, review of Order of 11th September, 2009 has been sought by Respondent No.2 to 7, asserting that litigation against Respondent No. 2 - Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (HUDCO) has to be instituted before the Administrative Tribunal in view of the Government of India Notification of 1't December, 2008 (Annexure R-1) to this petition, whereas while entertaining Petitioner's writ petition for release of withheld increments etc., Respondent No. 2 Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (HUDCO) was directed to decide the Petitioner's representation within time bound period.

6. After having heard both the sides, on this petition, and upon perusal of the record of this case, I find that the existence of Government of India Rev. Pet. No.204l2010. C.M. No.9505/2010 (Direction), C.M. No.6l61201I (Delay), C.M. No.737l2011 (Delay), C.M.No.76ll2011 (Delay) in W.P. (C) No.1160012009 Page 3,.< Notification of 1"'December,2008 (Annexure R-1) has rightly not been disputed by the Petitioner. What has been said by the Petitioner is that he had acquired the knowledge about it in March, 2010.

7. Petitioner urges that this writ petition was not entertained on merits and merely a direction was given to Respondent - Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (HUDCO) to decide the Petitioner's representation and since the illegal rejection of Petitioner's representation is under challenge and because petition for contempt arises out of the violation of the directions issued on 11th September, 2009 is pending, the review of the aforesaid order is not called for, especially when Petitioner had the knowledge of this Notification only in March, 2010.

8. lt is often said that 'lgnorance of Law is no excuse'. A bare perusal of' the aforesaid Notification (Annexure R-1) clearly indicates that it was published on 1"tDecember,2008. All concerned are expected to have notice of it. In fact, there was an office objection by the Registry regarding maintainability of the writ petition and Petitioner's counsel had asked the Registry to list this matter before the Court subject to the objection of maintainability, with the following note:- 'HUDCO is a Government Company, not Government Department, therefore, CAT has no jurisdiction."

9. Somehow, the aforesaid office objection had escaped the notice of this Court and being oblivious of the aforesaid Government Notification Rev. Pet. No.20412010, C.M. No.9505/2010 (Direction), C.M.No.6l612011 (Detay), c.M. No.737l201I (Delay), c.ttl. No.76l1201I (Detay) in w.p. (c) No.r r600i2009 Page 4