Dismissed

Vinod Kumar Shah v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and Ors.

Delhi HC15 Feb 2018W.P.(C)/1411/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for interim relief regarding eviction from government accommodation, the court dismissed the petition. The court found the petition non-maintainable post-disposal of the main writ and noted the petitioner's failure to vacate premises despite prior concessions and undertaking.

What did the court decide?

The application for interim relief has been declined and dismissed.

Vinod Kumar Shah Vs Delhi Metro Rail… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~19.

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1411/2018

¶4

VINOD KUMAR SHAH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate with Petitioner in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION AND ORS. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankur Gupta and Mr. Ankit Saini, Advocates with Mr. Manish Kumar, Legal Manager for DMRC/R1. Mr. Ravindra Agarwal, Advocate for R9/CVC.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI O R D E R % 01.06.2018

¶8

CM APPL. 24789/2018 (by the petitioner for directions)

¶9

The present application has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia that the respondents be directed not to enforce the Notice dated 27.11.2017, for vacating government accommodation.

¶10

Mr. Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate appearing for respondents opposes the application and states that the writ petition having been disposed of on 15.02.2018, no such application for interim relief is maintainable. He also hands over a copy of the representation dated 30.11.2017 that was submitted by the petitioner to the Managing Director of the respondents/DMRC stating inter alia that he be permitted to retain the staff quarters till the closing the W.P.(C) 1411/2018 page 1 of 2

¶11

school of his daughter, i.e. till March, 2018. He states that the petitioner has not filed a copy of the representation 30.11.2017 with this application, solely to misguide the Court.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondents states that due concessions were given to the petitioner and the respondents had refrained from taking any coercive action till March, 2018, but he failed to vacate the premises even thereafter, thus compelling them to move the court of the learned MM for seeking police aid under Section 91 of the Delhi Metro Railway Act, 2002 to take over physical possession of the staff quarter.

¶13

Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that a copy of the representation dated 30.11.2017 was filed alongwith the writ petition, but concedes that no reference has been made to the same in the present application; nor has a reference been made to the concession granted by the respondents/DMRC to him.

¶14

No explanation has been offered by the petitioner for failing to abide by the undertaking given to the respondent/DMRC to vacate the staff quarter at the end of March, 2018, in terms of the concession granted to him. While deprecating the conduct of the petitioner in trying to mislead the Court by furnishing incomplete information in the application, we decline to entertain the present application, which is dismissed.

¶15

HIMA KOHLI, J

¶16

PRATIBHA RANI, J

¶17

JUNE 01, 2018/ na/ap W.P.(C) 1411/2018

¶18

page 2 of 2

Vinod Kumar Shah v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Shah v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation 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

Pankaj Jain Vs Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Naya Samaj Appejay Parents Association and Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Pradeep Chander Vs Indraprastha Power Gen. Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Rakesh Choubey Vs Election Commission of India & Anr.

Balwant Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mahendar Singh Vs Government of NCT of Delhi through the Secretary and Anr.

M/S Impressions Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Virender Kumar

Neeraj Pant Vs Public Work Department & Ors.

Shri Rohit Solanki Vs Union of India and Ors.

Pramod Singh Parihar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Birbal Singh Vs UOI and Ors.

New Delhi Municipal Council Vs G S Thind

Sh. Ganga Ram Vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selecation Board and Anr.

Neeraj Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.