Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CONT.CAS(C) 259/2018, CMNo. 14088/2018
GEETA CHAWLA & ORS Petitioner
Through: ' Mr. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia, Adv. with Ms. Vijay Lakshmi, Adv.,
CONT.CAS(C) 259/2018, CMNo. 14088/2018
GEETA CHAWLA & ORS Petitioner
Through: ' Mr. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia, Adv. with Ms. Vijay Lakshmi, Adv.,
VERSUS
ANSHU PRAKASH CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS Respondent
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Adv. for R-1, 2 & 4 -
Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr. Abhinav Tyagi, Adv. for R-5 to 7
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Adv. for R-1, 2 & 4 -
Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr. Abhinav Tyagi, Adv. for R-5 to 7
AND
.CONT.CAS(C) 260/2018, CM No. 14060/2018 P KRISHNA KANTH
Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia, Adv. with Ms. Vijay Lakshmi, Adv.
.CONT.CAS(C) 260/2018, CM No. 14060/2018 P KRISHNA KANTH
Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia, Adv. with Ms. Vijay Lakshmi, Adv.
VERSUS
ANSHU PRAKASH & ORS Respondent
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Adv. for R-L 2 & 4
Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr. Abhinav Tyagi, Adv. for R-5 to 7
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Adv. for R-L 2 & 4
Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr. Abhinav Tyagi, Adv. for R-5 to 7
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
ORDER n.04.2018 CM No. 14088/2018 in CONT.CAS(C) 259/2018
CM No. 14060/2018 in CONT.CAS(C^ 260/2018 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
2018:DHC:9347
ORDER n.04.2018 CM No. 14088/2018 in CONT.CAS(C) 259/2018
CM No. 14060/2018 in CONT.CAS(C^ 260/2018 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
2018:DHC:9347
CONT.CAS(C) 259/2018
CONT.CASfQ 260/2018 The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners alleging non- compliance of order dated September 04, 2017. The said order reads as under
"Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, learned counsel appearing for the
GNCTD states, he has taken written instructions as per which, a fresh proposal along with the views expressed by the Finance Department is going to be placed before the Cabinet for taking a final decision. He states, it is very difficultfor him to prescribe a time period in that regard.
Noting the above, the petition is disposed ofby holding that the same is premature. It is expected that the
Cabinet shall take the decision as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six monthsfrom today. Ifthe petitioners are still aggrieved by any decision to be taken by the Cabinet, they shall seek such remedy as available to them in accordance with the law. The respondents shall be at liberty to take such objections as available to them on facts as well as in law. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit ofthe case. "
Suffice to state, a perusal of the order would reveal, the Court had only expressed its desire that a decision be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from that date and nothing more.
Even though, no action has been taken pursuant to the said order, noting the tenor of the order a contempt petition would not be the remedy for the petitioners. Appropriate shall be for the petitioners to file a fresh writ petition for appropriate relief. In view of this order, Mr. Bhatia seeks to withdraw the contempt petitions. The same are dismissed as withdrawn.
V.KAMESWARRAO, J APRIL 11, 2018/aA:
CONT.CASfQ 260/2018 The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners alleging non- compliance of order dated September 04, 2017. The said order reads as under
"Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, learned counsel appearing for the
GNCTD states, he has taken written instructions as per which, a fresh proposal along with the views expressed by the Finance Department is going to be placed before the Cabinet for taking a final decision. He states, it is very difficultfor him to prescribe a time period in that regard.
Noting the above, the petition is disposed ofby holding that the same is premature. It is expected that the
Cabinet shall take the decision as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six monthsfrom today. Ifthe petitioners are still aggrieved by any decision to be taken by the Cabinet, they shall seek such remedy as available to them in accordance with the law. The respondents shall be at liberty to take such objections as available to them on facts as well as in law. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit ofthe case. "
Suffice to state, a perusal of the order would reveal, the Court had only expressed its desire that a decision be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from that date and nothing more.
Even though, no action has been taken pursuant to the said order, noting the tenor of the order a contempt petition would not be the remedy for the petitioners. Appropriate shall be for the petitioners to file a fresh writ petition for appropriate relief. In view of this order, Mr. Bhatia seeks to withdraw the contempt petitions. The same are dismissed as withdrawn.
V.KAMESWARRAO, J APRIL 11, 2018/aA:
JUDGMENT