Vinod Kumar Shah v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation And ORS.

$~19.

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 1411/2018 VINOD KUMAR SHAH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate with Petitioner in person.

versus DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION AND ORS. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankur Gupta and Mr. Ankit Saini, Advocates with Mr. Manish Kumar, Legal Manager for DMRC/R1.

Mr. Ravindra Agarwal, Advocate for R9/CVC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 01.06.2018 CM APPL. 24789/2018 (by the petitioner for directions) 1.

The present application has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia that the respondents be directed not to enforce the Notice dated 27.11.2017, for vacating government accommodation. 2.

Mr. Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate appearing for respondents opposes the application and states that the writ petition having been disposed of on 15.02.2018, no such application for interim relief is maintainable. He also hands over a copy of the representation dated 30.11.2017 that was submitted by the petitioner to the Managing Director of the respondents/DMRC stating inter alia that he be permitted to retain the staff quarters till the closing the W.P.(C) 1411/2018

school of his daughter, i.e. till March, 2018. He states that the petitioner has not filed a copy of the representation 30.11.2017 with this application, solely to misguide the Court.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondents states that due concessions were given to the petitioner and the respondents had refrained from taking any coercive action till March, 2018, but he failed to vacate the premises even thereafter, thus compelling them to move the court of the learned MM for seeking police aid under Section 91 of the Delhi Metro Railway Act, 2002 to take over physical possession of the staff quarter. 4.

Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that a copy of the representation dated 30.11.2017 was filed alongwith the writ petition, but concedes that no reference has been made to the same in the present application; nor has a reference been made to the concession granted by the respondents/DMRC to him.

5.

No explanation has been offered by the petitioner for failing to abide by the undertaking given to the respondent/DMRC to vacate the staff quarter at the end of March, 2018, in terms of the concession granted to him. While deprecating the conduct of the petitioner in trying to mislead the Court by furnishing incomplete information in the application, we decline to entertain the present application, which is dismissed.

HIMA KOHLI, J PRATIBHA RANI, J JUNE 01, 2018/na/ap W.P.(C) 1411/2018