High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/2585/2007

Kamleshwar Pratap v. Registrar Cooperative Societie

2016-12-15Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Chander Shekhar2 pages

$~26 & 27.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2585/2007 KAMLESHWAR PRATAP ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Anand Yadav, Advocate.

versus REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ..... Respondent Through Mr. Manzar Anis, Advocate for Mr.

Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC for GNCTD.

Ms. Anushruti & Ms. Vasundhara Nayyar, Advocates for North DMC.

Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Mr. Pradeep K. Bakshi & Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocates for respondent No. 10.

W.P.(C) 2586/2007 DEEPAK GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Anand Yadav, Advocate.

versus REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ..... Respondent Through Mr. Manzar Anis, Advocate for Mr.

Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC for GNCTD.

Ms. Anushruti & Ms. Vasundhara Nayyar, Advocates for North DMC.

Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

O R D E R

% 07.02.2017 CM No. 4796/2017 in W.P. (C) No. 2585/2007 CM No. 4794/2017 in W.P. (C) No. 2586/2007 Exemption applications are allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM No. 4797/2017 in W.P. (C) No. 2585/2007 CM No. 4795/2017 in W.P. (C) No. 2586/2007 Counsel for the non-applicant states that they have no objection in case delay of seventeen days in preferring the review applications are condoned. The applications are accordingly allowed. R.A. No. 50/2017 in W.P. (C) No. 2585/2007 R.A. No. 49/2017 in W.P. (C) No. 2586/2007 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no relief was prayed for and the allotment of flat made in favour of the applicant-S.P. Sharma, who was respondent No. 10 in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 2585/2007 & 2586/2007, was not the subject matter of the writ petitions. The contention is factually incorrect.

Reference can be made to the prayer clauses (d) and (d) of Writ Petition (C) No. 2585/2007. The applications for review are misconceived and beyond the scope and ambit of Order XLVII. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. They are dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.

FEBRUARY 07, 2017 VKR