Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 8982/2021
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 25.08.2021
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 25.08.2021
W.P.(C) 8982/2021
SMT. KIRAN TANDON ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Piyush Singh, Mr. Akshay Srivastava and Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advocates.
SMT. KIRAN TANDON ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Piyush Singh, Mr. Akshay Srivastava and Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT (DELHI) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Additional Standing Counsel with Mr. Dhairya Gupta, Advocates for R-1 and 2.
Through Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Additional Standing Counsel with Mr. Dhairya Gupta, Advocates for R-1 and 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGMENT
D.N.PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
Proceedings have been conducted through video conferencing.
CM No. 27947/2021 (Exemption from filing attested affidavit)
For the reasons stated in the application and in view of the present prevailing situation, the present application is allowed. However, the applicant is directed to file duly signed and affirmed affidavit within a period of one week from the date of resumption of regular functioning of the
Court.
Application is disposed of.
Present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
20.05.2016 passed by Respondent No.2/RCS.
2021:DHC:2624-DB Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents No.1 and 2, at the outset, draws the attention of the Court to the order dated 20.05.2016 to point out that the husband of the Petitioner had appeared before the
Competent Authority on the said date and had withdrawn the case with liberty to file a fresh case when the relevant documents would be available.
On his statement, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn. Learned counsel also points out to a letter dated 04/06.07.2016 addressed by the
Petitioner to the concerned Registrar wherein she had categorically stated that she was in the process of re-filing the appeal. It is argued that without filing the appeal, in terms of the liberty sought, the present writ petition has been filed, assailing the order dated 20.05.2016, which is impermissible in law. Objection is also taken to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches.
Faced with the above, Mr. Piyush Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, after canvassing some arguments, seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition, with liberty to resort to appropriate remedies available in law.
Permission as prayed for is granted.
Writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JYOTI SINGH, J
AUGUST 25, 2021/‘yo’
2021:DHC:2624-DB
Proceedings have been conducted through video conferencing.
CM No. 27947/2021 (Exemption from filing attested affidavit)
For the reasons stated in the application and in view of the present prevailing situation, the present application is allowed. However, the applicant is directed to file duly signed and affirmed affidavit within a period of one week from the date of resumption of regular functioning of the
Court.
Application is disposed of.
Present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
20.05.2016 passed by Respondent No.2/RCS.
2021:DHC:2624-DB Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents No.1 and 2, at the outset, draws the attention of the Court to the order dated 20.05.2016 to point out that the husband of the Petitioner had appeared before the
Competent Authority on the said date and had withdrawn the case with liberty to file a fresh case when the relevant documents would be available.
On his statement, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn. Learned counsel also points out to a letter dated 04/06.07.2016 addressed by the
Petitioner to the concerned Registrar wherein she had categorically stated that she was in the process of re-filing the appeal. It is argued that without filing the appeal, in terms of the liberty sought, the present writ petition has been filed, assailing the order dated 20.05.2016, which is impermissible in law. Objection is also taken to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches.
Faced with the above, Mr. Piyush Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, after canvassing some arguments, seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition, with liberty to resort to appropriate remedies available in law.
Permission as prayed for is granted.
Writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JYOTI SINGH, J
AUGUST 25, 2021/‘yo’
2021:DHC:2624-DB