Sandeep Singh & ORS v. Deepak Mohan Spolia & ORS
$~4 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 350/2013 & CM No.19507/2014 SANDEEP SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners Through:
Ms. Sriparna Chetterjee, Adv.
versus DEEPAK MOHAN SPOLIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through:
Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Akash Nagar, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Additional Standing Counsel for GNCTD with Mr. Dhananjay Rana, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
O R D E R
% 19.01.2016 CONT.CAS(C) 350/2013 1.
Vide order dated 29th May, 2012 in W.P.(C) 3207/2012, this Court directed Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Department of Training and Technical Education to decide the petitioners' representation within six weeks. This Court further observed that if the petitioners were aggrieved by the said order, they would be at liberty to challenge the said decision. Para 7 and 8 order dated 29th May, 2012 are reproduced hereunder:- "7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents No. 1 & 2 are directed to decide the representation/legal notice made by the petitioners within six weeks from today and outcome thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioners.
8. In case, the petitioners still feel aggrieved, they are at liberty to challenge the decision of the respondents." 2.
On 26th April, 2013, the petitioners filed CONT.CAS(C) 350/2013 in which the showcause notice was issued to respondents on 30th April, 2013.
On 26th September, 2013, the respondents submitted before this Court that vide communication dated 09th May, 2013, the decision and response to the petitioners representation has been sent to them. It was further submitted that after due deliberations over eight meetings, the High Power Committee has submitted its report and finalised a draft statue called Delhi Technical University Statue, 2012 which has been sent for approval and publication to the Lt. Governor and all steps were expected completed within four weeks. This Court recorded the submissions of the respondents whereupon this Court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the decision if they were not satisfied with the same.
Order dated 26th September, 2013 is reproduced hereunder:- "This contempt petition is predicated on noncompliance of the orders passed by this Court on 29th May, 2012 by disposing off WP(C) No.3207/2012 whereby the directions were issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, "to decide the representation/legal notice made by the petitioners within 6 weeks from today and outcome thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioners." Notice in this matter was issued on 30th April, 2013. In reply, the respondents have taken the position that the disposal of the petitioners' representation envisaged due consideration of all aspects of the matter by a High Power Committee.
It is further submitted at the Bar that the communication dated 9th May, 2013 sent to the petitioners, in fact, constitutes the decision and response to the aforesaid representation of the petitioners qua which the aforesaid directions were issued by this Court. It is further stated that after due deliberations over about eight meetings, the High Power Committee has ultimately submitted its report, and also finalized a draft statute called, the Delhi Technological University Statute (fifth), 2012, governing the terms and conditions of continuation of teaching and non-teaching employees of the erstwhile Delhi College of Engineering in the Delhi Technological University.
Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that this draft statute has been forwarded for approval and publication to the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi; and all
further steps, including publication thereof, are expected to be completed within 4 weeks from today. She further submits, on instructions, that the aforesaid steps taken by the respondents constitute a complete response to the representation/legal notice of the petitioners and that the petitioners would be entitled to all further benefits, if any, in terms thereof. At the same time, in case the petitioners are, in any way, dissatisfied by the aforesaid decision taken in response to their representation it would be open to them to take recourse to such other proceedings as they may be advised to seek for appropriate redressal in the matter. The statement of counsel for the respondents is accepted by this Court. Counsel for the petitioners states that, under the circumstances, she does not wish to press this petition any further.
This petition is therefore disposed off in the above terms."
3.
On 01st May, 2014, the petitioner approached this Court for revival of the petition by CM No.8299/2014 which was allowed vide order dated 23rd July, 2014.
4.
Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned ASG submits that the respondents have taken a decision on the petitioner's representation on 21st July, 2014, copy whereof has been placed on record at page 136 to 138. Learned ASG has handed over a note giving the explanation for delay in taking the decision. It is further submitted that the delay on the part of the respondents to take the decision was neither deliberate nor intentional.
5.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the respondents are bound by the statements made before this Court on 26th September, 2013 and the respondents cannot be permitted to take contrary stand in the decision dated 21st July, 2014.
6.
Learned ASG submits that vide order dated 29th May, 2012 as well as 26th September, 2013, liberty has been given to the petitioners to challenge the decision if they were not satisfied with the same.
7.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners shall challenge the decision dated 21st July, 2014 but the respondent should not raise the issue of delay. Learned ASG on instructions from Mr. Anand Kumar, Office Superintendent, Secretariat Branch DTTE, present in Court submits that if the challenge is made within a period of four weeks, the issue of delay shall not be raised by the respondents. 8.
Vide order dated 29th May, 2012, this Court had directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation within a fixed time frame and the petitioner was given liberty to challenge the decision if they were not satisfied with the outcome. Although there was delay on the part of the respondents in taking decision but more than 11⁄2 years has passed after the decision dated 21st July, 2014 and petitioners have now sought permission to challenge the same.
9.
This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the decision dated 21st July, 2014. If the challenge is made within four weeks, the respondent shall not raise the objection of limitation. The pending applications are also disposed of.
10.
It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion in the merits of the case.
11.
Copy of this order be given dasti to counsels for the parties under signature of Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
JANUARY 19, 2016 ak