Sub Trilok Chandra Pandey v. Union Of India & ORS

$~17 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 783/2017 & CM No. 3647/2017 SUB TRILOK CHANDRA PANDEY ..... Petitioner Through Mr. S.S. Pandey, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through Ms. Sangita Rai, SCGC with Mr. Pradeep Singh Tomar, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA

O R D E R

% 11.05.2017 Ld. Counsel for the respondent on instructions states that AI No. 6/69 will not be applicable to accommodation, which are provided/allotted by the Ministry of Defence. With respect to the said accommodation, memorandum/policy dated 28.5.2007 is applicable. In the present case, the petitioner is in occupation of the staff quarter in R.K. Puram area, which is not located in the area of Cantonment Board known as Delhi Cantt.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner disputes the aforesaid legal submissions and submits that AI No.6/69 is equally applicable to accommodation provided by Ministry of Defence. Ld. Counsel for the respondent states that he requires two weeks time to file affidavit to clarify the position.

Normally we would have granted the time and fixed the matter

in the month of July after summer vacations.

However, we are not inclined to go into the said question, as the petitioner had asked for one month's time to retain the accommodation in question, as was noticed and recorded in the order dated 2.5.2017. Identical prayer for time is made today. Posting the writ petition for hearing in the month of July would mean that the petitioner would continue the accommodation for the period, what he had requested.

In the said circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition in view of the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner with the direction that he be allowed to retain the present accommodation till 15.6.2017.

We clarify that no further time or extension would be granted.

SANJIV KHANNA, J ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA, J MAY 11, 2017/rc