VA TECH WABAG LIMITED v. DELHI JAL BOARD

1. This LPA has been preferred by the original petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8342/2020 against the following order: 2020:DHC:3455-DB “The hearing has been held through video conferencing. CM No.28077/2020 The petition is already listed for hearing on 23rd December, 2020. It is not possible to accede to this request of preponing the date of hearing. The application is dismissed.”

2. The aforesaid order has been passed in CM No.28077/2020 preferred in W.P.(C) No.8342/2020 and the next date of hearing is fixed as 23.12.2020.

3. Against the order declining early hearing, the present LPA has been preferred. No rights and liabilities of the parties have been crystallized. Hence, this appeal is not tenable in law.

4. Much has been argued by the learned senior counsel for the appellant (original writ petitioner) that the impugned order debars this appellant for three years dehors the agreement between the parties. Various clauses of the Agreement have been referred to by the learned senior counsel for the Appellant to contend that firstly there ought to have been negotiations between the parties, followed by appointment of experts and in case the dispute is not resolved, the same could be referred to the arbitrator.

5. As this LPA has been preferred against an order of adjournment, we are not entering into the merits/demerits of the matter. Suffice it to say that on the next date of hearing before the learned Single Judge, both the parties will request the learned Single Judge for hearing of CM No.27045/2020 in W.P.(C) No.8432/2020, which is for interim relief during the pendency of the writ petition, without asking for any adjournment.

6. With these observations, the LPA is disposed of. The pending application also stands disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN, J DECEMBER 3, 2020 pk