Petitioner sought guidelines for membership list transparency and participation in a scrutiny committee. Petitioner's counsel accepted the respondent's timeline, leading to the disposal of the writ petition without further的方向.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
#37
$~
J K SRIVASTAVA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. R.D. Sharma with Mr. Rajat Sharma and Mr. Chetan Sharma, Advocates
versus
GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Sacchin Puri with Mr. Ravi Chawla, Mr. Karan Bhardwaj and Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
O R D E R % 11.02.2016
Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “a) fix the guidelines to prepare and maintain the correct list of members and upload the same on line so that there would be complete transparency for all times to come;
b) direct the respondent no. 2 to include the petitioner in the scrutiny committee which is working for scrutiny of membership list as the petitioner is the whistle blower of the present case;
c) direct the respondent no. 2 to include a retired judge of the Hon’ble High Court in the scrutiny committee which is working for scrutiny of membership list;
W.P.(C) 1130/2016
Page 1 of 2
d) direct the respondent no. 2 to provide its day to day affairs to its members regarding progress of scrutiny work of the members of the respondent no. 2 by displaying the same on notice board(s);
Learned counsel for petitioner states that he had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 11425/2015 and the same was dispose of vide order dated 10th December, 2015, wherein respondent no. 2 stated that a three members committee has been constituted on 1st December, 2015 to scrutinize the list of members of respondent no. 2-DBA and the committee was likely to submit its report within eight weeks.
Today, learned counsel for respondent no. 2-DBA states that the process of scrutiny shall be completed on or before 31st March, 2016.
Learned counsel for petitioner is satisfied with the aforesaid statement and does not wish to press the present writ petition any further.
The statement made by learned counsel for respondent no. 2-DBA is accepted by this Court and respondent no. 2-DBA is held bound by the same.
In view thereof, present writ petition and application stand disposed of.
Order dasti.
MANMOHAN, J
FEBRUARY 11, 2016 rn
W.P.(C) 1130/2016
Page 2 of 2
J K Srivastava
GNCT of Delhi
DBA
Manmohan
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
