Anjul Oberoi v. Smt Sujata Chaturvedi And ORS

$~103 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 1784/2024 ANJUL OBEROI .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Dhruv Joshi and Mr. Ajayh Kanojiya, Advocates versus SMT SUJATA CHATURVEDI AND ORS .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Anil Soni (CGSC) with Mr.

Devvrat Yadav (G.P), Ms. Sanchari Banerjee and Ms.

Ishika Soni, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Mahendharan T., Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B. and Ms. Pariksha, Advocates for R-3 & R-4

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

O R D E R

% 12.11.2024 1.

Petitioner had earlier field a writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) 16646/2023 which was disposed of by learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 22.12.2023. Such order reads as under: - "1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that, at this juncture, he would be satisfied if a direction may be given to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the representation given by the Petitioner in the month of November, 2023.

2. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation given by the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

3. The writ petition is disposed of, along with pending application (s), if any."

2.

When asked, it was informed that respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 in the aforesaid Writ Petition were Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Youth & Sports and Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of CONT.CAS(C) 1784/2024 1 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2024 at 11:47:13

Home Affairs respectively.

3.

Basketball Federation of India and Uttar Pradesh Basketball Association were also respondents in the aforesaid Writ Petition, as respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 5 respectively. 4.

The grievance raised in the present Contempt Petition is that despite there being specific direction, respondent nos. 1 & 2 have not considered the representation.

5.

According to learned counsel for petitioner, there were certain internal communications between the Centre and the State Body but their representation is yet not decided.

6.

Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 has stated that the position of Union of India is little difficult in the present scenario as the aspect related to "Sports" is a State subject which falls under Schedule-II of the Constitution of India. He, however, states that since the requisite reply has already been received from the State Body, they would, within the permissible scope and ambit, send requisite communication to the petitioner informing him about the outcome of his representation. It is undertaken that aforesaid communication shall be sent within ten days from today. 7.

Such statement is taken on record.

8.

In view of the above, learned counsel for petitioner, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition.

9.

Present petition stands disposed of as not pressed. MANOJ JAIN, J NOVEMBER 12, 2024/dr CONT.CAS(C) 1784/2024 2 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2024 at 11:47:13