Partly allowed

Rajiv Gautam v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC15 Jan 2024LPA/50/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an order awarding compensation for illegal detention was passed with a violation of natural justice as notice was not served on the appellant. The order against the appellant was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order qua the appellant is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Single Judge for a fresh hearing.

Rajiv Gautam Vs Government of NCT of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~48.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LPA 50/2024 & CM APPL. 2479/2024, CM APPL. 2480/2024, CM APPL. 2481/2024, CM APPL. 2482/2024, CM APPL. 2483/2024

¶4

RAJIV GAUTAM ..... Appellant

¶5

Through: Ms. Ramisha Jain, Mr. Dhananjay Singh Sehrawat, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, ASC, GNCTD with Mr. Arjun Basra, Advs Inspector Rajesh Kumar, PS, Badarpur.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶10

O R D E R % 15.01.2024

¶11

Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 05^th October, 2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3851/2023, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.5- petitioner seeking compensation for illegal detention in police lock-up was allowed and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded to respondent No.5petitioner, to be recovered from the salary of appellant and respondent No.4. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the impugned judgment has been passed ex parte. She states that no notice of the writ petition was

¶12

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 01:25:11

¶13

ever served upon the appellant. She emphasises that the respondent no.5petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking compensation on account of his alleged illegal arrest and detention.

¶14

Issue notice. Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Advocate, accepts notice. She states that she had informed the Police Department about the pendency of the writ petition. She, however, admits that though she had represented the Police Department, yet she had no power of attorney in her favour from the appellant.

¶15

Keeping in view the fact that the learned Single Judge has fastened personal liability upon the appellant, this Court is of the view that the appellant should have been served personally and should have been given an opportunity to put forward his defence prior to any order being passed. Consequently, as the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order qua the appellant is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for a fresh hearing qua the appellant on 02^nd February, 2024.

¶16

The appellant is directed to intimate the next date of hearing to learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of.

¶17

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶18

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶19

JANUARY 15, 2024 N.Khanna

¶20

Rajiv Gautam v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Gautam v. Government of NCT of Delhi & 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

Heena Luthra Vs Aarti Juneja & Ors.

Punjab National Bank Vs Seven Seas Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Ashima Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

Jaswinder Kaur Vs Union of India & Ors.

Deepa Raheja Vs Bank of Baroda & Anr.

Commercial Real Estate Exchange Inc. Vs Costar Group Inc. & Anr.