Aum Mangalassery v. State Of NCT Of Delhi And ORS

$~7 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 833/2016 & CM No.3636/2016 AUM MANGALASSERY ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Jaimon Andrews Achin Goel, Advocate

Versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through:

Mr.Vinod Kumar Bhati, Adv. for Mr. Devesh Singh, Adv. for R1&2 Mr. G. Prakash, Standing Counsel for State of Kerala for R3 to R6

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

O R D E R

% 02.09.2016 1.

The Petitioner, who claims to be an advocate practicing in Kerala, filed this petition by way of Public Interest Litigation alleging that the appointments of the employees of the Kerala House, Delhi were made on the basis of bogus/forged certificates and, therefore, the Respondent No.2/SHO, Parliament Street Police Station may be directed to register a case and proceed in accordance with law.

A further direction to Respondent No.3 and 4, i.e. the State of Kerala and the Resident Commissioner, Kerala House, Delhi has also been sought to enquire into all the validity of all the appointments made in Kerala House on temporary basis and to initiate appropriate legal action against the employees of the Kerala House, Delhi who were allegedly appointed on the basis of bogus/forged certificates. W.P.(C) 833/2016

2.

We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsels appearing for the Respondents No.1 & 2 and the Respondents No.3 to 6.

3.

Having regard to the nature of the allegations made in the writ petition and the documents produced, we consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Respondent No.4 / Resident Commissioner of Kerala House, Delhi to look into the allegations made by the petitioner by treating this petition as a representation and take appropriate action in accordance with law after conducting the necessary enquiry following due process of law.

Needless to mention that an opportunity of being heard shall be given to all the persons concerned before taking a decision.

4.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J SEPTEMBER 02, 2016 kks W.P.(C) 833/2016