This order dismissed a contempt petition as the respondent-authority complied with prior directions by issuing an order dated December 01, 2017 explaining the non-availability of alternatives for allotment.
The contempt petition is closed; liberty granted to challenge the order dated December 01, 2017.
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.
$~1
RAJ ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal, Adv. with Ms. Toral Banerjee, Adv.
versus
UDAI PRATAP SINGH & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
O R D E R
CM No. 44088/2017
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CONT.CAS(C) 810/2017
in W.P.(C) No. 5029/2017 have been complied with, inasmuch as the
respondents have issued an order dated December 01, 2017. She has placed
before me a copy of the said order for perusal. The last paragraph of the
said order reads as under:-
of other senior applicants, the request of the applicant may not be acceded to at present, in view of the non-availability of adequate number of plots. It may be noted that the recommendation letter cle3arly mentioned that allotment would be subject to availability of plots. This issue with the approval of Competent Authority.”
also states, a further copy shall be given to Mr. Dalal during the course of the day. In view of the above, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge
the said order in accordance with law, the contempt petition is closed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
APRIL 11, 2018 /ak
RAJ
UDAI PRATAP SINGH & ANR
V. KAMESWAR RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
