Two judgements in the High Court of Delhi regarding a writ petition. They address a telegram, request for exemption applications, and review applications, granting some and dismissing others.
Exemption applications allowed; review applications regarding flat allotment dismissed; conditional review application regarding delay allowed.
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.
$~26 & 27.
KAMLESHWAR PRATAP ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Anand Yadav, Advocate.
versus
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ..... Respondent Through Mr. Manzar Anis, Advocate for Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC for GNCTD. Ms. Anushruti & Ms. Vasundhara Nayyar, Advocates for North DMC. Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Mr. Pradeep K. Bakshi & Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocates for respondent No. 10.
W.P.(C) 2586/2007
DEEPAK GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Anand Yadav, Advocate.
versus
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ..... Respondent Through Mr. Manzar Anis, Advocate for Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC for GNCTD. Ms. Anushruti & Ms. Vasundhara Nayyar, Advocates for North DMC.
Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
O R D E R % 07.02.2017
CM No. 4796/2017 in W.P. (C) No. 2585/2007 CM No. 4794/2017 in W.P. (C) No. 2586/2007
Exemption applications are allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM No. 4797/2017 in W.P. (C) No. 2585/2007 CM No. 4795/2017 in W.P. (C) No. 2586/2007
Counsel for the non-applicant states that they have no objection in case delay of seventeen days in preferring the review applications are condoned. The applications are accordingly allowed.
R.A. No. 50/2017 in W.P. (C) No. 2585/2007 R.A. No. 49/2017 in W.P. (C) No. 2586/2007
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no relief was prayed for and the allotment of flat made in favour of the applicant-S.P. Sharma, who was respondent No. 10 in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 2585/2007 & 2586/2007, was not the subject matter of the writ petitions. The contention is factually incorrect. Reference can be made to the prayer clauses (d) and (d) of Writ Petition (C) No. 2585/2007. The applications for review are misconceived and beyond the scope and ambit of Order XLVII. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. They are dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
FEBRUARY 07, 2017 VKR
KAMLESHWAR PRATAP
DEEPAK GUPTA
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
NAUSHAD AHMED KHAN
SANJIV KHANNA
CHANDER SHEKHAR
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
