Disposed

Sajjan Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC22 Mar 2016W.P.(C)/4349/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the respondents to withdraw the impugned eviction order and issue a fresh speaking order via the competent authority after the petitioner files a comprehensive representation within one week, ensuring no coercive steps are taken during the pendency. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to file comprehensive representation within one week; respondents to consider and decide within two weeks via speaking order; no coercive steps till consideration.

Sajjan Kumar Singh Vs Union of India & Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4349/2015 & C.M. 7871/2015

¶4

SAJJAN KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Prashant Sivarajan, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Digpal, CGSC & Mr. Ashutosh Jha, Advocate with Mr. S.S. Sejwal, Law Officer

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 22.03.2016

¶11

This order is being passed in continuation of order dated 3^rd March, 2016, when counsel for the respondents had sought an adjournment to obtain instructions from the department as to whether the impugned order dated 1^st April, 2015 (Annexure P-1), has been passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short ‘PP Act’) or by the competent authority in terms of the order dated 12^th November, 2014, passed by the Division Bench in the previous writ petition [W.P.(C) 7707/2014] filed by the petitioner.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondents states on instructions that the order dated 1^st April, 2015 (Annexure P-1) has been issued by the Estate

¶13

W.P.(C) 4349/2015

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

Officer, Director General, CRPF, New Delhi, rejecting the petitioner’s representation against the eviction order passed in respect of the government quarter occupied by him and damages have been imposed on him. However, on a perusal of the order dated 1^st April, 2015 (Annexure P-1) , it appears that the same has not been passed by the competent authority, as was directed by the High Court vide order dated 12^th November, 2014. Instead, the same has been passed by the Estate Office when admittedly, no proceedings under the PP Act have been initiated against the petitioner so far.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondents states that to put to rest the said controversy, the respondents be permitted to withdraw the order dated 1^st April, 2015 (Annexure P-1) and pass a fresh order in compliance with the order dated 12^th November, 2014.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to file a comprehensive representation before the respondents within one week, which be directed to be decided by the competent authority in a time bound manner.

¶18

The petitioner shall file a comprehensive representation before the respondents within one week, which shall be considered and decided by the respondents within two weeks by passing a speaking order, under written intimation to the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved with the decision of the respondents, he shall be entitled to seek his remedies in accordance with the law.

¶19

Till the time the petitioner’s representation is decided by the respondents, they shall not take any coercive steps against him in terms of

¶20

W.P.(C) 4349/2015

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

the Notice dated 19^th January, 2015, titled ‘Information’ (Annexure P-2).

¶23

The petition and the application are disposed of.

¶24

A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the respondents

for compliance.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J

MARCH 22, 2016

W.P.(C) 4349/2015

Page 3 of 3

Sajjan Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajjan Kumar Singh 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

Bhupendra Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Charan Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Devi Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ram Avtar Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Mohd. Kasif Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Ashwani Abhilashi Vs University of Delhi & Anr.

Wular Trust Vs Addl.Director of Wealth Tax(Exemp.)& Ors.

Tista Trust Vs Addl.Dir.of Wealth Tax(Exemp.) & Ors.

Subrata Ghose Vs Union of India and Anr.

Major Arvind Joshi Vs UOI & Anr.

Bhuri Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

S Jayakumar Nair Vs Union of India and Ors.

Saraswati Thapa Vs Union of India & Ors.

Naveen Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.