Richhpal v. Employees State Insurance Corporation

Delhi High Court · 25 Nov 2020 · 2020:DHC:3391-DB
Siddharth Mridul; Talwant Singh
W.P.(C) 9392/2020
2020:DHC:3391-DB
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition as not pressed after respondents undertook to file a reply and the petitioner chose not to pursue the matter further.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 9392/2020
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
Delivered On: 25.11.2020 RICHHPAL .....Petitioner
versus
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ANR. ......Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakhar Bhatnagar, Mr. Mohit Tyagi &
Mr. Aman Kharb, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. V.K. Singh, Ms. Nisha Hans &
Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. (Open Court – via Video Conferencing)
The present matter has been taken up for hearing through Video
Conferencing on account of Covid-19 pandemic.
CM APPL. 30244/2020, CM APPL. 30245/2020 & CM APPL.
30246/2020 (Exemption)
Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.
The applications are disposed of accordingly.
2020:DHC:3391-DB

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying as follows:- “Quash/set aside the impugned order dated 06.11.2020 passed by the Ld. CAT in Miscellaneous Application No. 2179 of 2020 filed in Original Application No. 709 of 1997 and allow the Miscellaneous Application No.644 of 2020 thereby ordering the Respondents to comply with the final order dated 01.04.1998 in O.A No. 709 of 1997.”

2. Mr. V.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on an advance notice, duly accepts notice and undertakes that the reply to M.A. No.644/2020 in O.A. No.709/1997 titled as ‘Richhpal vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation’ shall be filed without demur within one week from today with an advance copy to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein.

3. The above undertaking expressed on behalf of the official respondents is hereby accepted directing them to comply with the same without demur.

4. In view of the foregoing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not press the present writ petition any further.

5. With the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed and disposed of accordingly.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE)

TALWANT SINGH (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 25, 2020 ‘AA’/dn Click here to check corrigendum, if any