Full Text
Translation output
$-11 and 12 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)4200/2013,C.M.No.9702/2016 & C.M..No.21061/2016
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ;;
Petitioner
Through Mr.Digvijay Rai,Advocate.
W.P.(C)4200/2013,C.M.No.9702/2016 & C.M..No.21061/2016
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ;;
Petitioner
Through Mr.Digvijay Rai,Advocate.
VERSUS
ADM/LAC(SOUTH WEST)& ORS.
Respondents
Through Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Ms.Jyoti Tyagi and Ms.Goldy,Advocates for R-1. r ; + W.P.(C)4208/2013,C.M.NO.9899/2016& C.M.No.21062/2016
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA Petitioner
/F —N
W- Through Mr.Digvijay Rai,Advocate. ;! -
Respondents
Through Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Ms.Jyoti Tyagi and Ms.Goldy,Advocates for R-1. r ; + W.P.(C)4208/2013,C.M.NO.9899/2016& C.M.No.21062/2016
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA Petitioner
/F —N
W- Through Mr.Digvijay Rai,Advocate. ;! -
VERSUS
ADM/LAC SOUTH WEST AND ORS :
Respondent
Through Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Ms.Jyoti Tyagi arid Ms.Goldy,Advocates for R-1.
Respondent
Through Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Ms.Jyoti Tyagi arid Ms.Goldy,Advocates for R-1.
CORAM:
\ HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR O ORDER ^ % 13.07.2016
Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 12.3.2013 passed by respondent no.1 i.e. ADM/LA(South West). !
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main contention ofthe petitioner is that this order passed by the ADM is illegal for the reason that the ADM did not have the requisite
2016:DHC:8951 V.
L; jurisdiction. It is only the ADM appointed as Nodal Officer by this.
Court vide order dated 06.11.2012 who alone would have the; jurisdictipn to decide the matter in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner will abide by this statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner additionally submits that the order of the ADM has been challenged on merits as well.
In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that this matter can be disposed of by the ADM (Nodal officer), New Delhi who has the requisite jurisdiction to decide the same. The learned
^ ADM shall decide the matter within an outer limit of three months
® from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to state that all the pleadings and arguments taken in the present petition would be available to the petitioner before the ADM (Nodal Officer). The learned ADM ^Nodal Officer), New Delhi will pass orders uninfluenced by any observations made by this Courtin this order. I
Petitions disposed ofin the above terms.
^ INDERMEET KAUR,J JULY13,2016 ndn 2016:DHC:8951
Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 12.3.2013 passed by respondent no.1 i.e. ADM/LA(South West). !
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main contention ofthe petitioner is that this order passed by the ADM is illegal for the reason that the ADM did not have the requisite
2016:DHC:8951 V.
L; jurisdiction. It is only the ADM appointed as Nodal Officer by this.
Court vide order dated 06.11.2012 who alone would have the; jurisdictipn to decide the matter in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner will abide by this statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner additionally submits that the order of the ADM has been challenged on merits as well.
In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that this matter can be disposed of by the ADM (Nodal officer), New Delhi who has the requisite jurisdiction to decide the same. The learned
^ ADM shall decide the matter within an outer limit of three months
® from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to state that all the pleadings and arguments taken in the present petition would be available to the petitioner before the ADM (Nodal Officer). The learned ADM ^Nodal Officer), New Delhi will pass orders uninfluenced by any observations made by this Courtin this order. I
Petitions disposed ofin the above terms.
^ INDERMEET KAUR,J JULY13,2016 ndn 2016:DHC:8951
JUDGMENT