Disposed

Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC7 Sept 2016W.P.(C)/9168/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, hearing a PIL alleging financial irregularities and illegal selection of athletes by Special Olympics Bharat, directed the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to treat the petition as a representation, inquire, and pass an order within eight weeks after affording a hearing to the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to treat the petition as a representation, inquire, and pass an order within eight weeks after hearing the parties.

Pradeep Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9168/2015 & CM APPL. 20899/2015

¶4

PRADEEP KUMAR ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through Mr. Sulaiman with Mr. A K Dubey Advs.

¶6

Versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents

¶8

Through Mr. Dev. P Bhardwaj, CGSC for R-1&2 Mr. Anil Grover with Mr. Mishal Vij and Ms. Noopur Singhal, Adv. for R-3 Mr. Hari Singh with Mr. Chaman Lal Adv. for R-4 to 6

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL O R D E R

¶10

% 07.09.2016

¶11

This petition by way of Public Interest Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to initiate an inquiry by an independent agency preferably by CBI into the alleged finanancial irregularities and mal-functioning of the respondent No.4/"Special Olympics Bharat" and the illegalities committed in selection of the sports persons under the Intellectual Disabled Category as well as coaches to represent the country in the 14th Special Olympics World Summer Games held in Los Angels, U.S.A. A further direction has also been sought for removal of the respondents 5 & 6, who are stated to be CEO of the respondent No.4 and National Sports Director respectively.

¶12

The petitioner claims to be a tax consultant by profession and a social worker working in the field of child education. It is pleaded that the respondent No.4 "Special Olympics Bharat" is a Charitable Trust registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. Its objectives included to promote, sponsor and organize Special Olympics to provide sports training and athletic competition in a variety of Olympic type sports for children and adults with mental retardation or intellectual disability irrespective of caste, creed or religion both within India and on an international level. The material placed on record shows that by proceedings dated 18.01.2006 of the Government of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, the respondent No.4 was granted recognition as a National Federation and was granted a major role for development of the sports for persons with mental retardation/intellectual disability. The respondent No.4 was also categorized under "priority" category for availing Central assistance under various schemes of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports vide proceedings dated 07.04.2006.

¶13

It is alleged in the writ petition that the respondent No.4 adopted several fraudulent and corrupt practices in the slection of atheletes and coaches for participation of the World Summer Games, 2015 and there was complete violation of the guidelines dated 01.05.2010 as well as the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 issued by the Government of India. It is alleged that the appointment of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 was also illegal and in violation of the guidelines issued from time to time. The further allegation is that the respondent No.4 is not registered under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. It is pleaded that

¶14

though several complaints were made to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 bringing to their notice the alleged irregularities and illegalities committed by the respondent No.4 and its corrupt activities, no action has been taken till date. 4. The respondents 4 to 6 filed counter affidavits denying the allegations made by the petitioner and contending that the writ petition is motivated and not bona fide.

¶15

We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material avaialble on record.

¶16

Though we are not inclined to enter into the various issues raised by the petitioner and express any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made, we consider it appropraite to direct the respondent No.2/Union of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to look into the contents of the writ petition treating the same as a representation and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as well as the writ petitioner. Such an order shall be passed within eight weeks from today and a copy of the same shall be communicated to all the parties. If aggrieved, the parties are at liberty to challenge the order that may be passed by working out the appropriate remedy available under law.

¶17

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions.

¶18

Dasti.

¶19

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶20

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

¶21

SEPTEMBER 07, 2016/P

Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India and 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

M/S Dlf Laing O' Rourke (India) Ltd. Vs UOI & Others

M/S Pooja Marbles Vs Union of India and Others

State of Haryana Vs K.L. Manhas

M/S Pooja Marbles Vs UOI & Ors.

Kashmir Singh Vs Land & Building Department & Another

Indrawati Vs Land and Building Department and Anr.

Sukho Khalsa Senior Secondary School Vs Director of Education

Rajesh Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Rajeev Kumar Yadav Vs Archaeological Survey of India & Ors.

Sachin Vs Deputy Secretary (Exams) & Ors.

Rajeev Kumar Yadav Vs Dr Rakesh Tiwari & Ors.

Sales Tax Bar Association Vs Gnct of Delhi and Ors.

S Srividhya Vs the Honble Adjudicating Authority & Ors.

Rashtriya Mukti Morcha Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.