Disposed

Y P Bhatt & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Jan 2018W.P.(C)/331/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Delhi granted liberty to the petitioners to submit a detailed representation regarding a dispute over cooperative society elections. The Court ordered the matter to be decided within four weeks after considering the submission.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file detailed representation within ten days; matter to be decided within four weeks thereafter.

Y P Bhatt & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~44

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 331/2018 & C.M. No. 1388/2018

¶4

Y P BHATT & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Anup Kr. Sinha & Mr. Satya Narayan Padhi, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Ghade & Mr. Nikhil Goel, Advocates for Union of India.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

¶9

O R D E R % 12.01.2018

¶10

Vide the present petition, the petitioners have assailed the communication/order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent nos. 6 to 15 has been allowed.

¶11

The limited grievance raised by Mr. Satya Narayan Pandhi, learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, is that the said order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing or even asking for the comments of the petitioners even though based on their complaints, the Chief Welfare Officer vide his order dated 24^th July 2017 had directed that the election of the CGERWA Type-II, III & IV, Sector-5 R.K. Puram, New Delhi held on 28^th May 2017 may be treated as null and void. He submits that grave prejudice has been caused to the petitioners as vide the impugned order, the respondent no. 2 has set aside the aforesaid directions given by the Chief Welfare Officer and has held the elections to be valid and thereby declared the private respondents as elected in those elections.

¶12

Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5 is unable to dispute the fact that the petitioners were neither associated in any manner nor given any opportunity of hearing by the respondent no. 2 while allowing the appeal filed by the private respondents.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the admitted fact that all the private respondents were given a hearing before passing of the impugned order thereby setting aside communication/order dated 24.07.2017 passed by Chief Welfare Officer on basis of the petitioner’s complaint the petitioners should be granted an opportunity to make a detailed representation to the respondent no. 2, which should be considered on merits.

¶14

At this stage, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5 fairly submits that in case a representation is made by the petitioners the same will be considered on merits and a speaking and reasoned order will be passed with regard to the same by giving a hearing to the present petitioners.

¶15

It is, therefore, deemed appropriate that the petitioners be granted liberty to submit a detailed representation within ten days and it is further directed that the matter will be decided within four weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that in case respondent no. 2 finds merit in the submissions of the petitioners, he would be entitled to re-open the matter and, if necessary, call all the private respondents before passing any final order.

¶16

The petition is disposed off in above terms alongwith the application.

¶17

REKHA PALLI, J

¶18

JANUARY 12, 2018 NC/av

Y P Bhatt & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y P Bhatt & Ors. 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

M/S Automak Academy Vs Union of India & Ors.

International Fasteners through Its Proprietor Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Pio, Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs Vishwas Bhamburkar

Tula Ram Vs Delhi Power Co.Ltd. & Anr.

Subhash Chander Khatri Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Mrs. Sangeeta Purohit Vs State (Govt. of NCT Delhi ) and Ors.

Ms. Nirmal Yadav Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Karan Ahluwalia Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vivek College of Sciences and Hospital, Bijnor Vs Union of India

Ashok Goel Vs Land and Development Office and Anr.

Purbayan Educational Institution Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Netaji Teachers Training Institute Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Mnm Teachers Training College Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.