Court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's pending representation regarding lease restoration and other pleas, directing a site visit and reasoned order within ten weeks, dismissing the writ petition.
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.
10
$~
M/S KALLU RAM JAI KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Malhotra, Advocate.
versus
NATIONA CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI& ANOTHER ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Biji Rajesh, Advocate for Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
O R D E R % 20.01.2016
Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
“a. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ in the like nature thereby, directions be issued for quashing the letter No.F.Land/BIE/237/M-26/77/DI/03 dt. 4.1.2010 (Annexure-AI) issued and served upon the petitioner only on 9.1.2010 by Shri Vishva Mohan, Jt. Commissioner of Industries (L-II).
b. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ in the like nature thereby, directions be issued for restoration of the Lease in respect of Plot No. M-26, Phase-I, Badli Industrial Estate, Delhi110042 and
c. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ in the like nature thereby, directions be issued for setting aside the orders dated 13.6.1991 and 2.4.1997 passed by Dy. Secretary (Industries) determining the lease of the property bearing No.M26, Phase-I, Badli Industrial Estate, Delh-110042 and also
d. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ in the like nature thereby, directions be issued for permitting the petitioner to deposit restoration charges with the respondent No.2 and also permitting the petitioner to get the property free-hold on the payments of the requisite charges.”
Admittedly, the petitioner’s fresh representation dated 20th May, 2015 is pending consideration before the respondents.
This Court directs the respondents to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 20th May, 2015 by way of a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as after visiting the site in question.
The representation is directed to be decided in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of ten weeks. A copy of the decision is directed to be communicated to the petitioner by registered A.D. post.
It is also directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for a period of four weeks after the petitioner’s representation has been disposed of.
In the event, the petitioner’s representation is rejected, petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Petitioner is also granted liberty to raise all pleas as raised in the present writ petition. Rights sand contentions of all parties are left open.
With the aforesaid directions, present writ petition and application stand disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
JANUARY 20, 2016 js
M/S KALLU RAM JAI KUMAR JAIN
NATIONA CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI
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
