← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/3873/2019

Edison Integrated Textile Park Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And ORS.

2019-04-15Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru2 pages

$~36 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 3873/2019 EDISON INTEGRATED TEXTILE PARK PVT.

LTD.

..... Petitioner Through:

Ms Tatini Basu with Mr B. Suyodhan, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr P. C. Yadav, Sr. Panel Counsel with Ms Neha Gupta, Advocate for R2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 15.04.2019 CM No.17583/2019 1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 3873/2019 2.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:- "i) Issuance of Writ declaring the inaction on part of Respondents in taking any steps in pursuance of the Letter bearing No.19/2/2011-SITP dated 28-10-2011 and Letter bearing No.19/16/2011-STIP Cell dated 08.11.2011 as being illegal, unfair, prejudicial, arbitrary and unjust in nature, the same being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ii) Issue an appropriate writ/order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent to act in

pursuance of the Letter bearing No.19/2/2011-STIP dated 28-10-2011 and Letter bearing No.19/16/2011SITP Cell dated 08-11-011 and release the amount as per the Scheme for Integrated Textile Park (STIP)." 3.

The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved by the alleged inaction on part of the respondents in not taking steps, pursuant to the letters dated 28.10.2011 and 08.11.2011.

4.

It is seen from the record that the last communication addressed by the petitioner is dated 08.04.2014, whereby the Chief Secretary, Ministry of Textiles, Government of Tripura was requested to instruct all concerned regarding release of the first instalment, without further delay. It is the petitioner's case that the petitioner has not received any response to its letter. 5.

As is apparent from the above, the petitioner has not sent any communication for more than five years.

In this view, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. However, it would be open for the petitioner to once again approach the respondents for eliciting the response to its representation. In the event, the petitioner approaches the respondents within a week from today, the concerned respondents shall communicate their response within a period of three months, thereafter. 6.

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 15, 2019 MK