Allowed

Mohd. Asif & Anr. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Apr 2019W.P.(C)/3828/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Delhi held that the Central Administrative Tribunal passed an order without application of mind, failing to deal with submissions of parties. The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Tribunal set aside; matter remanded for re-hearing and re-consideration with directions to record submissions appropriately before passing final decision.

Mohd. Asif & Anr. Vs South Delhi Municipal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~20.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3828/2019

¶4

MOHD. ASIF & ANR ..... Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kunal Vajani, Standing Counsel and Mr. Paras Anand, Mr. Jayant Rastogi & Mr. Jaibir Sethi, Advocates for SDMC.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

¶9

¶10

O R D E R 12.04.2019

¶11

Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondent/ SDMC accepts notice.

¶12

The petitioners assail the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (CAT/ Tribunal) in O.A. No.602/2014. The Tribunal has rejected the said Original Application preferred by the petitioners. In the Original Application, the petitioners had assailed the order dated 30.01.2014, whereby the respondents had withdrawn the promotion given to the petitioners in the year 2007 & 2009 on the ground that they had concealed the fact that an FIR had been

¶13

registered against them in the year 2002. The plea of the petitioners was that they had been discharged in the said proceedings and they also contested the respondents’ stand that the respondents were not aware of the pendency of the FIR.

¶14

A perusal of the impugned order shows that apart from recording the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal has undertaken no exercise of examining those submissions by application of mind. We have repeatedly came across such like orders recently passed by the same bench of the Tribunal and have remanded the matters back to the Tribunal for reconsideration on merits.

¶15

We may refer to our order dated 09.04.2019 in W.P.(C) 3617/2019 & W.P.(C) 3620/2019, wherein we had observed:

¶16

“4. ... ... ... A perusal of both the impugned orders shows that there is absolutely no application of mind displayed by the Tribunal. The orders are unreasoned and do not record or deal with the submissions of the petitioners/ applicants or even the respondents. The Tribunal has to appreciate that it is exercising original jurisdiction. It is expected to carefully deal with all the submissions raised before it by reference to the facts, the submissions and the case law. Its application of mind can be demonstrated only by incorporation of its process of reasoning in the decision making process.

¶17

5. Unfortunately, we have earlier also came across orders passed by the same bench of the Tribunal in W.P. (C) No. 3487/2019 titled Shivpal Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., decided on 05.04.2019. We have set aside the order passed by the Tribunal in the said case and remanded the case back for re-hearing and re-consideration on merits with a direction to the Tribunal to ensure that properly

¶18

reasoned order is passed by it. That order was also directed to be communicated to the Chairman of the Tribunal for compliance.

¶19

6. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned orders in the aforesaid writ petitions and remand the cases back to the Tribunal for re-hearing and re-consideration. We again emphasize that the Tribunal should deal with the matter more seriously and the orders passed by it should not reflect a sense of casualness in the matter of dealing with the submissions of the parties. A litigant, who approaches the Tribunal, goes to the Tribunal in the hope that he would be granted a fair and complete hearing and his submissions would be dealt with competence and due application of mind. No Judicial Officer should forget his obligation of his calling and the fact that he is answerable to the litigant while dealing with his case.”

¶20

We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand back the matter to the Tribunal for re-consideration. The parties shall be heard; their submissions recorded and appropriately dealt with by the Tribunal while passing the final decision. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶21

The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 29.04.2019.

¶22

The petitioners have submitted that the matter may not be remanded back to the Tribunal. We are not inclined to examine the pleas of the petitioners for the first time in these proceedings. This Court is exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review and, for that purpose, it is necessary that the order passed by the Tribunal should be properly reasoned, which in the present case, it is not.

¶23

Interim order operating in favour of the petitioners, if any, during the

¶24

pendency of the Original Application shall stand restored.

¶25

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

VIPIN SANGHI, J

REKHA PALLI, J

APRIL 12, 2019

B.S. Rohella

Mohd. Asif & Anr. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Asif & Anr. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajni Gupta Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Sunaina Devi Smarak Shikshan Prashikshan Sansthan Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare and Ors.

Union of India Vs Dr. Nutan Tahkur

Mohd Akbar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sanjay Mathur Vs Union of India and Anr.

Lajinder Singh Vs S.D.M.C and Anr.

Prashant Deep Vs High Court of Delhi

Amira Pure Food S Private Limited Vs Canara Bank and Anr.

Abdul Nasir Khatri Vs Canara Bank and Ors.

Dr. Bipin Batra Vs National Board of Examinations & Anr.

M/S Rajco Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vishnu Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Prashant Deep Vs High Court of Delhi

Ram Niwas Rustagi and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.