Full Text
Translation output
#79,82,83 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 57/2016 & CM APPLs. 332/2016, 1998/2016
MASTER UDAY PRATAP SINGH KAPOOR Petitioner
Through Mr. Akhil Sachar, Advocate.
Ms. Simran Brar, mother of petitioner.
W.P.(C) 57/2016 & CM APPLs. 332/2016, 1998/2016
MASTER UDAY PRATAP SINGH KAPOOR Petitioner
Through Mr. Akhil Sachar, Advocate.
Ms. Simran Brar, mother of petitioner.
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF NOT OF DELHI & ORS Respondents
Through Mr. Gurukrishna Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Peeyosh Kalra, ASC (Civil), GNCTD for R-1 to 3.
Mr. Dev P. Bharddwaj, CGSC for UOI.
Through Mr. Gurukrishna Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Peeyosh Kalra, ASC (Civil), GNCTD for R-1 to 3.
Mr. Dev P. Bharddwaj, CGSC for UOI.
WITH
W.P.(C) 472/2016 & CM APPL. 1929/2016
SAMRIDHI SINGH Petitioner
Through Mr. Akhil Sacharwith Mr. Raghu Vasisth, Advocates
SAMRIDHI SINGH Petitioner
Through Mr. Akhil Sacharwith Mr. Raghu Vasisth, Advocates
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF NOT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
UOI. W.P.(C) 57/2016, 472/2016, 473/2016 Page1 of3
2016:DHC:9273 AND
2016:DHC:9273 AND
W.P.(C) 473/2016 & CMAPPL. 1931/2016
KAMAKSHIM PRAKAASH Petitioner
Through Mr. Akhil Sachar with Mr. Raghu Vasisth, Advocates
KAMAKSHIM PRAKAASH Petitioner
Through Mr. Akhil Sachar with Mr. Raghu Vasisth, Advocates
VERSUS
GOViERNMENT OFNCI OF DELHI & ORS Respondents UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
ORDER o/o 02.02.2016 Present batch of writ petitions has been filed challenging the order dated 18^ December, 2015 whereby the upper age limit for admission to pre-school, pre-primaiy and class one has been fixed.
Though the matter had been extensively argued yesterday, yet today
Mr. Gurukrishna Kumar, learned senior counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 states that the impugned order dated 18^^ December, 2015 shall not apply to the case ofthe three petitioners. He states that the said statement has been made because the present petitioners had approached this Court prior to the last date of filing of the application forms.
• W.P.(C) 57/2016, 472/2016, 473/2016 , Page 2of3
Without commenting on the legality and validity of the impugned order as well as the rationale given by the respondents, this Court accepts the statement made by learned senior counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and the said respondents are held bound by it.
Consequently, present writ petitions and applications are disposed of as satisfied. However, the rights and contentions ofall parties are left open.
Order dasti under signature of Court Master. lU
MANMOHAN, J FEBRUARY 02, 2016 m
ORDER o/o 02.02.2016 Present batch of writ petitions has been filed challenging the order dated 18^ December, 2015 whereby the upper age limit for admission to pre-school, pre-primaiy and class one has been fixed.
Though the matter had been extensively argued yesterday, yet today
Mr. Gurukrishna Kumar, learned senior counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 states that the impugned order dated 18^^ December, 2015 shall not apply to the case ofthe three petitioners. He states that the said statement has been made because the present petitioners had approached this Court prior to the last date of filing of the application forms.
• W.P.(C) 57/2016, 472/2016, 473/2016 , Page 2of3
Without commenting on the legality and validity of the impugned order as well as the rationale given by the respondents, this Court accepts the statement made by learned senior counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and the said respondents are held bound by it.
Consequently, present writ petitions and applications are disposed of as satisfied. However, the rights and contentions ofall parties are left open.
Order dasti under signature of Court Master. lU
MANMOHAN, J FEBRUARY 02, 2016 m
W.P.(C) 57/2016, 472/2016, 473/2016 3of3
JUDGMENT