Allowed

B a Tata v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC6 Sept 2017W.P.(C)/7773/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding alleged illegal takeover and mismanagement of a society-run school, the Court declined to entertain the substantive allegations but directed three respondents to consider the petitioner's representations and communicate their decisions.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondents 2, 3, and 4 to consider the petitioner's representations and communicate their decisions.

B a Tata Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~14

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7773/2017

¶4

B A TATA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Shailesh Madiyal and Ms M. Prabhakar, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC (Civil), GNCTD for R-1, 2 & 4. Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA/R3.

¶7

Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R

¶9

% 06.09.2017

¶10

CM No. 32069/2017

¶11

Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

The application stands dispose of.

¶13

W.P.(C) 7773/2017

¶14

The petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia , praying as under:-

¶15

“a) issue a Writ or order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No. 2 Director of Education to consider Representation of the Petitioner dated 20.04.2017 (Annexure P-13) in accordance with law

¶16

and pass appropriate orders in the same; and/or,

¶17

b) issue a Writ or order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.3 Delhi Development Authority to consider Representation of the Petitioner dated 18.05.2017 (Annexure P-14) in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in the same; and/or,

¶18

c) issue a Writ or order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.4 Registrar of Societies to consider Representation of the Petitioner dated 18.01.2017 (Annexure P-10) in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in the same.”

¶19

It is the petitioner’s case that Sivananda Vidya Bhavan Society, respondent no.5 (hereafter 'the society'), has been illegally taken over by respondent nos 6 and 7. The petitioner has also alleged that all the founding members of the said society have been changed and the school is been run illegally on the land allotted by DDA. The petitioner alleges that takeover of the society is only for the purpose of misappropriating of the land allotted by DDA to the society. It is also claimed that the school is being run illegally and without complying with the rules and regulations. It is asserted that although complaints have been made to respondent nos.2 and 3, no action has been taken pursuant thereto.

¶20

This Court is not inclined to entertain the controversy regarding the allegations made by the petitioner. However, since the petitioner has already made representations before respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, they (that is, respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4) are directed to consider the same and if warranted, take such action as required in accordance with law.

¶21

The said respondents shall also communicate their decision in that regard to the petitioner. No further orders are required to be passed in this petition.

¶22

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶23

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶24

SEPTEMBER 06, 2017 RK

B a Tata v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B a Tata v. Govt of NCT of Delhi 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

Suresh Aggarwal Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Vijay Mohan Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Roopram Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Union Public Service Commission Vs Poutluri Srikanth Kumar

Delhi Cantonment Board Vs the Station House Officer P S Delhi Cantt and Anr.

Spl Industries Ltd.(through the Manager Commerical Sh.Sanjay Jain Vs Union Ofo India & Others

Ram Raj Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

M/S Sis Live Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anil Kumar Poddar Vs Edynamics Solutions Ltd. and Ors.

Surender Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Jheel Kuranja Co-Operative Milk Producer Society Limited Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Himatsingka and Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Grasim Industries Limited Vs Competiton Commission of India & Anr.