High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/7399/2017

Dinesh Tomar & ANR v. Central Board Of Secondary Education & ORS

2017-08-25Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Indermeet Kaur2 pages

$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7399/2017 & C.M. No.30574/2017 DINESH TOMAR & ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Mukesh M. Goel, Adv.

versus CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Amit Bansal and Ms. Seema Dolo, Advs for R-1 & R-2.

Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC with Ms.

Deboshree Mukherjee, Adv for R-3 & R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

O R D E R

% 25.08.2017 The petitioner is a nobody in the present petition. He is not related to the school in any manner. His contention is that his father was the owner of the land which had been leased out to the school where the school is now standing. The averments in the petition do not disclose any such averment. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this land had been purchased jointly by one Sultan Singh and Fateh Singh. His contention is that Sultan Singh is his father. At the cost of repetition, this has not been mentioned or averred anywhere in the petition. Learned counsel for the respondents rightly points out that this appears to be a vendetta which the petitioner wishes to take out upon the respondent school; he is nowhere and in no manner connected with the school. Even presuming it is a public interest litigation, it W.P.(C) 7399/2017

would not lie in this Court.

Learned counsel for the respondents points out that this writ petition appears to have been filed malafide as the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner to substantiate a submission that his father was the part owner of this land upon which this school stands is an incorrect document and this Court has rightly noted that on a query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner on this score, he has no answer as it has nowhere averred in the entire body of the petition that Sultan Singh is in any manner related to him. In the body of the petition, it has also not been mentioned that the affiliation had been granted in favour of respondent No.5 but the record shows that a provisional affiliation had been granted sometime in the year 2012; final affiliation has yet not been granted to the petitioner.

The petition appears to have been malafide. It is a wastage of precious time of the Court. It is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-.

INDERMEET KAUR, J AUGUST 25, 2017 W.P.(C) 7399/2017