Ashwini Jana v. The Ministry Of Human Resource Development Through Its Secretary & ORS

$~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2498/2016 & CM Appls. 10706-10707/2016 ASHWINI JANA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Prakash with Ms. Swati, Mr. Rajeev Dahiya and Mr. Subhash Chandran, Advs. versus THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Uniyal, Adv. for R-1

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

O R D E R

% 21.03.2016 The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent no. 1 to constitute an independent expert enquiry regarding corruption and other irregularities in the managing committee of respondent no. 3. Petitioner further seeks a direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to reconsider the recognition/affiliation of respondent no. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on 27th January, 2015, the petitioner made a representation to the Prime Minister of India as well as HRD Minister and respondent no. 2 regarding corruption and other irregularities in respondent no. 3. He further states that on 7th May, 2015, the petitioner received a letter from respondent no. 2 stating that petitioner's request for proper and thorough investigation into the allegation of corruption and other

irregularities in respondent no. 3 had been forwarded to the managing committee of respondent no. 3 for examination with a request that they will send a report directly to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 acted arbitrarily in forwarding the complaint to the managing committee of respondent no. 3 against whom the petitioner had made complaint of serious corruption and other irregularities. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, who appears on advance notice, states that the petitioner's representation shall be disposed of by respondent No. 1 itself after obtaining comments from respondent No. 3.

This Court is in agreement with the counsel for the parties that the petitioner's complaint/representation dated 27th January, 2015 should be decided by respondent No. 1 itself. Consequently, respondent No. 1 is directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 27th January, 2015 within a period of eight weeks after obtaining comments from respondent No. 3. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition and applications stand disposed of.

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy. Rights and contentions of all parties are left open.

MANMOHAN, J MARCH 21, 2016 NG