The High Court of Delhi disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner was directed to pass appropriate orders after it was confirmed there was no pending vigilance case against the respondent, as required for his committee recommendation.
Directed the petitioner to proceed to pass appropriate orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~18
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORTION ..... Petitioner Through Ms. Biji Rajesh and Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Advs.
versus
S L MEENA ..... Respondent Through Mr. Padma Kumar S. and Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R % 20.11.2018
VIPIN SANGHI, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
NOVEMBER 20, 2018
rc
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be directed to pass orders given the development that there was no pending vigilance case.
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORTION
S L MEENA
VIPIN SANGHI
A. K. CHAWLA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
