Disposed

Krishna Kalra and Anr. v. Public Grievance Commission, Govt. of NCT Delhi

Delhi HC20 May 2016W.P.(C)/4043/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging PGC directions revoking licenses allegedly issued to dead owners and investigating corruption. Court held EDMC must grant hearing before action and directed PGC to implead petitioners in grievance proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed EDMC to grant hearing before acting on PGC advisories; directed PGC to implead petitioners in grievance proceedings.

Krishna Kalra and Anr. Vs Public Grievance Commission, Govt. of NCT… — Corruption | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

23 $~

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4043/2016 & CM APPL. 17063/2016

¶4

KRISHNA KALRA AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Sagar Dawar, Advocate with petitioner No.2 in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

PUBLIC GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, GOVT. OF NCT DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sumit Agarwal, Advocate for respondent No.1 along with Mr. A.K. Tyagi, PPS/ Pairvi Officer, PGC. Mr. Ajjay Arora, Advocate with Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocate for EDMC. Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate with Ms. Chandrika Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.7.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶8

O R D E R % 20.05.2016

¶9

Present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 09^th February, 2016 and 12^th April, 2016 whereby the respondent No.1-Public Grievance Commission (for short ‘PGC’) observed that the factory licenses for water cooling plants had been issued in the name of the owners who are dead and there appears to be serious matter of corruption by the officials of the Factory Licensing Department of East Delhi Municipal Corporation (for short ‘EDMC’).

¶10

Respondent No.1-PGC further directed the Director, Factory Licensing Department, to revoke licenses of three factories forthwith. The respondent No.1-PGC also observed that all the factories belong to one person and it was a mafia. Respondent No.1-PGC directed the Vigilance Branch to look into this aspect and expedite the inquiry and submit a report by 08^th June, 2016.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioners states that the orders passed by the PGC are null and void as they have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶12

Learned counsel for respondent No.1-PGC clarifies that the impugned orders are not binding directions, but only advisories. He further states that respondent-EDMC is legally bound to conduct an independent inquiry after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, before taking any action against the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Rajat Aneja, learned counsel for respondent No.7 adopts the stand taken by the respondent No.1-PGC. He, however, states that respondent No.7 should also be given an opportunity of hearing by the EDMC before passing any order.

¶14

Keeping in view the aforesaid statements, this Court is of the view that the petitioners’ interest are adequately safeguarded inasmuch as EDMC is bound to take action against any person only after he has been given an opportunity of hearing and after it has concluded in such proceedings that he is a defaulter or a violator.

¶15

The respondent No.1-PGC is also directed to implead the petitioner as a party to the proceedings in Grievance No. PGC/2015/MCD/1921.

¶16

As the matter of abundant caution, this Court also directs the EDMC to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as respondent No.7 before passing any order on the basis of advisories issued by the PGC.

¶17

With the aforesaid directions and clarifications, present writ petition and application stand disposed of.

¶18

MANMOHAN, J

¶19

MAY 20, 2016 js

Krishna Kalra and Anr. v. Public Grievance Commission, Govt. of NCT Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kalra and Anr. v. Public Grievance Commission, Govt. of NCT Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tejas Networks Ltd.& Anr. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.

M/S Amit Brothers Vs Union of India & Ors.

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs Pankaj Narula

Narender Kumar Vs Transport Department & Ors.

Khushboo Aggarwal & Anr. Vs Telecom Regulatory Authority of India & Anr.

Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs Union of India & Ors.

Amit Kumar Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Umesh Chandra Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Amit Brothers Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dr. Kaushik Roy Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University & Anr.

Shagun & Anr. Vs Delhi Public School & Anr.

Jay Iron and Steels Ltd. Vs Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency & Anr.

Ashish Kumar Dwivedi Vs Central Board of Film Certification

Prahlad Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.