Disposed

Kusum Verma v. Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Delhi HC3 Feb 2020W.P.(C)/1263/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court expressed surprise at the Tribunal's cavalier attitude towards its earlier order regarding a stay application. The Court directed the Tribunal to hear the stay application positively on a specified date, mandate a reasoned order, and convey the Court's displeasure to the Tribunal members.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tribunal to hear the stay application on 07.02.2020, pass a reasoned order, and convey the Court's displeasure to the Tribunal members.

Kusum Verma Vs Commissioner, North Delhi… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2020)

¶1

$~21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Judgment : 03^rd February, 2020 + W.P.(C) 1263/2020 KUSUM VERMA ..... Petitioner

¶4

Through Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advocate versus COMMISSIONER, NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through Ms. Namrata Mukim, Standing Counsel for the respondents with Ms. Sangita Jain, ASO, DOE, HQ, NDMC.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

¶7

G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

¶8

CMs.APPL 4384-4385/2020(exemption)

¶9

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

The applications stand disposed of.

¶11

W.P.(C) 1263/2020 & CM.APPL 4383/2020(stay)

¶12

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 28.01.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’). The order of the Tribunal is reproduced below:

¶13

“ MA Nos.121/2020 & 226/2020

¶14

Heard.

¶15

W.P.(C) 1263/2020

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

Perused the MAs. In both the MAs the applicant seeking vacation of stay order dated 02.01.2020 by which he along with 11 persons has absorbed. As the pleadings are complete, both the MAs have become infructuous, hence, dismissed.

¶18

Counsel for applicant has relied upon Hon’ble High Court’s judgment passed in WP(C) 729/2020, which is not applicable.

¶19

Counsel for applicant has relied upon Hon’ble High Court’s judgment passed in WP(C) 7825/2014, which will be considered at the time of final disposal.

¶20

OA No.3456/2019

¶21

As the pleadings are complete, post the matter on 06.05.2020 for final disposal.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the categorical directions issued by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2020 in W.P.(C).No.729/2020, the Tribunal has failed to consider the stay application and has adjourned the matter to the month of May, 2020 for final disposal.

¶23

Notice to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted. Notice in the stay application as well. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice.

¶24

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

The petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.729/2020 since in MA No.121/2020 filed by the petitioner the Tribunal had only issued notice returnable for 28.01.2020. The petitioner had raised various grounds before us but we considered it appropriate not to entertain the writ petition since the stay application was still pending before the Tribunal;

¶26

W.P.(C) 1263/2020

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

the application was listed on 28.01.2020; and we did not want to prejudge the issue. In this view of the matter, the following order was passed by this Court on 20.01.2020:

¶29

“Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 10.01.2020 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, by which in an M.A. No.121/2020 seeking interim relief, the Tribunal has simply issued notice for 28.01.2020, without giving any interim relief.

¶30

Notice.

¶31

Ms. Mini Pushkarna, learned counsel for the respondents, who enters appearance on advance copy, accepts notice.

¶32

Since the matter is coming-up before the Tribunal on 28.01.2020, we find no ground to entertain this petition. However, we have no hesitation in saying that this application would be heard and a reasoned order would be passed, on the next date fixed.

¶33

Writ petition is disposed of in terms of aforesaid observations.

¶34

Dasti”

¶35

We are both surprised and pained at the manner in which the Tribunal has perceived, understood and dealt with the order passed by this Court, in which we had passed the following directions:

¶36

“… However, we have no hesitation in saying that this application would be heard and a reasoned order would be passed, on the next date fixed….”

¶37

While passing order dated 28.01.2020, the Tribunal has shown scant regard for, and has displayed a casual and cavalier attitude towards, the

¶38

W.P.(C) 1263/2020

¶39

Page 3 of 5

¶40

orders passed by a Division Bench of the High Court; and despite the fact that the order was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has observed as under:

¶41

“…Counsel for applicant has relied upon Hon’ble High Court’s judgment passed in WP(C) 729/2020, which is not applicable…”

¶42

(Emphasis supplied)

¶43

We fail to understand as to how, when the order of this Court was passed in relation to the very M.A. that was pending before the Tribunal, did the Tribunal reach the conclusion that our directions were not applicable to the matter. It is evident that we had exercised forbearance in not passing any interim order since the M.A. was pending consideration before the Tribunal and had been adjourned for a short date. Yet the Tribunal thought that no reasoned order was required on the M.A.

¶44

Taking note of the aforementioned circumstances, we direct the Tribunal to now hear the stay application positively on 07.02.2020. The matter would be taken-up as Item No.1. The application will be heard and a reasoned order would be passed. Both parties will appear before the Tribunal on the said date without any further notice and shall not seek any adjournment.

¶45

We direct that this order be brought to the notice of the concerned Bench. Additionally, a copy of this order be marked to the learned Chairman of the Tribunal, who will convey the displeasure of this Court to the two members who have passed the order.

¶46

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶47

W.P.(C) 1263/2020

¶48

Page 4 of 5

¶49

A copy of the order be given dasti to the parties under the signatures of Court Master.

¶50

CM.APPL 4383/2020(stay)

¶51

The application stands disposed of in view of the order passed in the writ petition.

¶52

G.S.SISTANI, J

¶53

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J FEBRUARY 03, 2020 pst

¶54

W.P.(C) 1263/2020

¶55

Page 5 of 5

Kusum Verma v. Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kusum Verma v. Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal 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

Smt. Shyamo Devi Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Dayanand Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Rajeev and Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Dewan Chand Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Mohammad Ikhalaque Vs Uioin of India & Ors.

Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain Vs Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Anr.

Jai Shankar Kirpa Mahavidhyalaya Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Madhulata Mallick Vs New Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc) and Ors.

Shiksha Dagar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs Renu Dhankar & Ors.

Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Savita and Anr.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Beena Devi

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs Harsh Chaliha (Tgt)

Bhavna Gupta Vs the Union of India and Ors.