IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Rakesh Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2375 of 2023
Decided On : 24-02-2023
Exemption - Writ Petition - The court allowed the exemption applications and disposed of the petition seeking reliefs related to compliance with previous court orders and conduct of proper DPC for promotion.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking reliefs related to compliance with previous court orders and conduct of proper DPC for promotion. The petitioner had also filed representations which were pending for decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the petition directing the respondents to decide the pending representations of the petitioner in terms of the previous court order within a specified timeline and communicate the decision to the petitioner. The court also allowed the exemption applications.
Issues: Compliance with previous court orders, conduct of proper DPC for promotion, pending representations, and exemption applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the respondents to decide the pending representations of the petitioner in accordance with the previous court order and allowed the exemption applications.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with directions to the respondents to decide the pending representations of the petitioner and communicate the decision within a specified timeline.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
CM APPL. 9078/2023 (Seeking Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of
CM APPL.9079/2023 (Seeking Exemption)
3. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
4. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2375/2023
5. A petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"a.) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ/order/direction directing the Respondents to comply with the order dated 24.07.2012 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition(C) 2121/1998 (ANNEXURE P1) in true and fair manner and conduct proper DPC for the Petitioner as per the rules for promotion from Dy. Commandant to the rank of Second-in-command in terms of order dated 24.07.2012 and accordingly grant him all the consequential benefits as has been done in case of similarly situated person namely Sh. Madhu Sudan Sharma and Sh. Indra Kumar Mehta vide order and judgment dated 28.07.2011 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) 8709/2010 and 7241/2001 titled as "Indra Kumar Mehta V Union of India & Ors." and "Sh. Madhu Sudan Sharma vs Union of Induia and Ors." respectively. (ANNEXURE P12);
b.) Award Rs.20 Lacs as cost of litigation in Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court since 1998 i.e. filing of W.P.C) No. 2121/1998 till disposal of this Writ Petition;
c.) To issue any other relief and further relief to the Petitioner in the interest of justice which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the above facts and circumstances."
6. For the aforesaid reliefs, the petitioner has filed representation dated 20.12.2019 and thereafter on 06.04.2022. However, the said representations are still pending for decision.
7. We hereby dispose of the present petition directing the respondents to decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner in terms of the Order dated 24.07.2012 passed by this Court in W.P (C) 2121/1998 with reasoned order within four weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioner within one week thereafter.
8. Needless to say that if the petitioner is still aggrieved with the decision of the respondents, he may challenge the same before the appropriate Forum.
9. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Compliance with court orders and timely decision on pending representations.
The court emphasized the duty of the administrative authority to consider applications under statutory provisions in a timely manner.
The court emphasized the importance of timely adjudication of representations under Article 226 and issued a writ of mandamus to ensure the same.
A writ petition becomes moot and is subject to dismissal when the relief sought has already been achieved by the petitioner.
Writ of Mandamus is inappropriate for private disputes; petitioners should seek resolution through competent courts.
The main legal point established is the court's authority to dispose of a petition when the respondents agree to revise the seniority list and provide consequential benefits if found eligible.
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable if the relief sought has become infructuous.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.