Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LPA 307/2011
UNION OF INDIA & ANR Appellant
Through Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Additional Standing Counsel for UOI.
LPA 307/2011
UNION OF INDIA & ANR Appellant
Through Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Additional Standing Counsel for UOI.
VERSUS
ANUP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ANR Respondent
Through Mr. K. K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pradeep Jain and Mr. Abhas Mishra, Advs.
Through Mr. K. K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pradeep Jain and Mr. Abhas Mishra, Advs.
LPA 323/2011
MIRZA MEHBOOB NEB Appellant
Through Mr. Sanjeev Kumar and Ms.Mumtaz Bhalla, Advs.
MIRZA MEHBOOB NEB Appellant
Through Mr. Sanjeev Kumar and Ms.Mumtaz Bhalla, Advs.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent
Through Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Additional Standing Counsel for UOI.
Through Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Additional Standing Counsel for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
23.05.2011 This Court in LPA No.459/2011 has passed the following order:-
"Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant is well advised to seek leave of this Court to withdraw the appeal and approachthe tribunal. Learned senior also counsel acceptsthat this Court shouldnot have adverted to the lis and the matter relates to entitlement of an official quarter, which is basically associated with the office the appellant holds. Further, the question of eviction of an unauthorized occupant under the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is a different matter than entitlement.
In our considered opinion, the statement of Mr. Sharma is absolutely well founded and, therefore, we set aside the order passed by the
2011:DHC:17105-DB learned single Judge and grant liberty to the appellant to approach the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short
'the tribunal) with a fresh original application. If such an original application is preferred under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the tribunal shall be well advised to deal with the same on merits and not to throw it over board on the ground of limitation, delay and laches. We may hasten to clarify, it is put forth before us by Mr. Sharma that the appellant is entitled to a particular quarter by virtue of rules and regulations and which confer a right of choice.
If the appellant is entitled to a particular quarter under any law and if such a conclusion is arrived at by the tribunal, a direction can be issued through the Union of India to allot the same quarter. Mr. Rajiv Nanda, learned counsel representing the Union of India very fairly stated that if the tribunal comes to the conclusion that the appellant herein is entitled to a particular quarter by virtue of any law in the field, it will be obligatory on the part of Union of India to comply with the same by taking recourse to all necessary laws, subject to challenge of the said order before the High Court.
With the aforesaid liberty and observations, the appeal is permitted to be withdrawn. The tribunal shall dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible."
In view of the aforesaid, nothing subsists to be adjudicated in these appeals and they are accordingly disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
SANHV KHANNA, J.
MAY 23, 2011 NA 2011:DHC:17105-DB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
23.05.2011 This Court in LPA No.459/2011 has passed the following order:-
"Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant is well advised to seek leave of this Court to withdraw the appeal and approachthe tribunal. Learned senior also counsel acceptsthat this Court shouldnot have adverted to the lis and the matter relates to entitlement of an official quarter, which is basically associated with the office the appellant holds. Further, the question of eviction of an unauthorized occupant under the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is a different matter than entitlement.
In our considered opinion, the statement of Mr. Sharma is absolutely well founded and, therefore, we set aside the order passed by the
2011:DHC:17105-DB learned single Judge and grant liberty to the appellant to approach the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short
'the tribunal) with a fresh original application. If such an original application is preferred under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the tribunal shall be well advised to deal with the same on merits and not to throw it over board on the ground of limitation, delay and laches. We may hasten to clarify, it is put forth before us by Mr. Sharma that the appellant is entitled to a particular quarter by virtue of rules and regulations and which confer a right of choice.
If the appellant is entitled to a particular quarter under any law and if such a conclusion is arrived at by the tribunal, a direction can be issued through the Union of India to allot the same quarter. Mr. Rajiv Nanda, learned counsel representing the Union of India very fairly stated that if the tribunal comes to the conclusion that the appellant herein is entitled to a particular quarter by virtue of any law in the field, it will be obligatory on the part of Union of India to comply with the same by taking recourse to all necessary laws, subject to challenge of the said order before the High Court.
With the aforesaid liberty and observations, the appeal is permitted to be withdrawn. The tribunal shall dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible."
In view of the aforesaid, nothing subsists to be adjudicated in these appeals and they are accordingly disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
SANHV KHANNA, J.
MAY 23, 2011 NA 2011:DHC:17105-DB
JUDGMENT