Disposed

Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC11 May 2016W.P.(C)/4213/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a BSF Constable's dismissal order, finding lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court directed the respondents to dispose of the pending internal appeal within eight weeks, with liberty for the petitioner to approach the competent court if aggrieved by that decision.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to dispose of the pending internal appeal of the petitioner within eight weeks.

Mukesh Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4213/2016 & C.M. No. 17799/2016

¶4

MUKESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Raghav Kapoor, proxy counsel for Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 11.05.2016

¶11

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was working on the post of a Constable with the BSF, assailing his dismissal order dated 24.1.2014 issued by the Commandant, BSF North Bengal.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had preferred an appeal dated 07.3.2014 against the dismissal order which the respondents have not disposed of till date.

¶13

Subsequently, on 09.9.2014 and 14.3.2015, the petitioner had sent reminders to the Appellate Authority to consider and dispose of his appeal but to no avail. Hence, the present petition.

¶14

We are prima facie of the opinion that the present petition is not maintainable in this Court as no actionable part of the cause of action

¶15

W.P.(C) 4213/2016 Page 1 of 2

¶16

has arisen in Delhi, particularly, when the impugned order was passed at West Bengal and an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority based in West Bengal.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice states on instructions that without prejudice to the objection with regard to the maintainability of the present petition in this Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, having regard to the limited relief prayed for by the petitioner, which is for disposal of his pending appeal, the respondents shall ensure that the said appeal is disposed of as early as is possible.

¶18

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with liberty granted to the respondents to consider and decide the pending appeal of the petitioner within eight weeks from today under written intimation to him.

¶19

If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order that may be passed by the Appellate Authority, he shall be entitled to seek his remedies, if so advised, before the competent Court vested with territorial jurisdiction in that regard.

¶20

The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J

MAY 11, 2016/ ap

W.P.(C) 4213/2016 Page 2 of 2

Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radha Nagpal & Anr. Vs UOI & Ors.

Dashrath Singh Vs Andhra Bank & Ors.

Alpha Infravision Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shashi Ranjan Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Umesh Ray Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jaidal Singh Rawat Vs Food Corporation of India & or

Mohd. Salim Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

Devender Singh Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Shashi Ranjan Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jyoti Varkade Vs Union of India and Anr.

V Gnancy Vs Union of India and Anr.

Yogesh Singh and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Asi/Gd Yogesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anil Kumar Mahato Vs Union of India & Anr.