The need for expeditious resolution of the Original Application and the directive for the Tribunal to decide the matter within a specified timeline.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 40190/2023 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 10380/2023, CM APPL. 40189/2023

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated July 28, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', for short) in Original Application No.2203/2023 (`OA', for short) whereby the Tribunal had rejected the prayer for interim relief made by the petitioner in the OA.

2. According to Mr. Rai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Tribunal vide its earlier order dated June 9, 2023 had granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner wherein it directed the respondent not to effect the change of Headquarters of the petitioner from Delhi to Odisha till the next date of hearing. But having directed it vide the same order directed the respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner and pass a speaking and reasoned order; and the order having been passed on July 6, 2023, whereby the respondent had not acceded to the request of the petitioner not to change the Headquarters and on filing of fresh OA being 2203/2023 wherein the impugned order has been passed, the Tribunal, while fixing the date of hearing in the OA as August 18, 2023 should have granted/ continued the interim order passed on June 9, 2023 pending consideration of the issue raised by the petitioner in the OA.

3. Mr. Vineet Dhanda, learned CGSC appearing for the respondent/Union of India would justify the order of the Tribunal by stating in the given facts, as the petitioner is stalking the complainant it is proper that the headquarter of the petitioner is kept at Bhubaneswar.

4. This submission of Mr. Dhanda is objected to by Mr. Rai, as according to him, if the petitioner is stalking the complainant, the complainant is within her right to seek cancellation of bail on that ground.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that August 18, 2023 is the date of hearing in the OA, moreover, the Tribunal has in paragraphs 5 and 6 stated as under, which clearly reveals that two weeks have been granted to the respondents to file reply to the OA and three days thereafter to the petitioner to file rejoinder to the reply, this Court is of the view that appropriate shall be, the Tribunal hear the learned counsel for the parties peremptorily on August 18, 2023 and decide the OA within one week thereafter:

"5. In a manner of speaking, the present O.A. could be deemed to be a continuation of the earlier O.A. i.e. O.A. No. 1761/2023, in which reply had already been filed by the respondents.

6. Since the issue reamins the same, we allow a period of 2 weeks and no more to the respondents to file reply to the present O.A. Mr. Hanu Bhaskar assures that he shall ensure that the reply is filed within the period of two weeks. Mr. R.K. Saini, learned counsel for the applicant seeks and is allowed a period of three days thereafter to file rejoinder. List the matter for hearing on 18.08.2023."

6. Till such time, the Tribunal decides the OA, the respondent is directed not to change the Headquarters of the petitioner from Delhi to Bhubaneswar. The petition is disposed of.

CM APPL. 40189/2023

Dismissed as infructuous.