Ved Ram Verma v. Union Of India & ORS
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11023/2017 VED RAM VERMA ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr. Aditya Agarwal with Mr. Umesh, Advs.
versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through:
Mr. Ajay Verma, Mr. Pawan Kawrani & Mr. Akshay Bhasin, Advs. for R-2/DDA Mr. Rahul Sharma & Mr. C.K. Bhatt, Advs. for DoPT Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana & Ms. Akshita Chhatwal, Advs. for R-6 Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC with Ms. Shivani Vij & Ms. Mahamaya Chatterjee, Advs. for GNCTD
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
O R D E R
% 30.11.2018 With regard to the prayers made in the writ petition, on the last date of hearing we were not inclined to consider the prayers in a public interest litigation exercising our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The prayers made in the writ petition read as under: "i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction for protecting the interest of residents of the New Ashok Nagar, Delhi by setting aside the Award No.39/82-83 as under shed of this award land mafia/land grabbers i.e. W.P.(C) 11023/2017
respondent no.6 not only received award, compensation and enhanced compensation in crores in respect of award no.39/8283 in collusion and connivance with Delhi Development Authority i.e. respondent no.2, land Acquisition Department i.e. respondent no.3 and Delhi police i.e. respondent no.4 which not only adversely affect the country's economy, society but also public at large who have invested their hard earned money by purchasing the land/house at New Ashok Nagar. ii.
Pass such further or other orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
iii. Allow the present PIL with costs."
Counsel for the petitioner has taken time to justify the prayers and demonstrated before us that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked. Today, no material is adduced before us even to prima facie to make out a case for setting aside an award which was passed except for making vague and general allegations. In fact, counsel for the petitioner technically has not dealt with any specific issue pertaining to the prayers.
On such indications made by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. CHIEF JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO, J NOVEMBER 30, 2018/ns W.P.(C) 11023/2017