Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
D.N. Patel, Jyoti Singh, JJ.
Fozia Rahman - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3536 of 2020 & CM Appls. 12580 of 2020 (Stay), 2088 of 2021 (Impleadment of R-5), 9900 of 2021 (Amendment of petition)
Decided On : 05-10-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. relief sought in writ petition (Para 1) |
| 2. infructuous nature of petition (Para 2) |
| 3. court's assessment of the petition (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. disposition of the petition (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
D.N. Patel, CJ. (ORAL)--Present writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:"(
i) Issue a writ of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the impugned Notification no. S.O. 1049(E) [F. No. A-12023/4/2019-Ad-IV] dated 12.03.2020 issued by the Respondent No. 1 appointing the Justice (Retd.) Shri Bansi Lal Bhat as officiating Chairperson of the Hon'ble NCLAT;
(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashingsetting aside Rule 10 of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Condition of Service of Members) Rules, 2020, if it is to be read/interpreted as permitting the Central Government to appoint any Member, irrespective of their Seniority, as "Acting/Officiating Chairperson" of the NCLAT in the event of the occurrence of any vacancy as well as being ultra vires to Section 415 of the Companies Act, 2013 and other relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 1 to appoint an officiating/Acting Chairperson of the Hon' ble NCLAT as per relevant applicable laws and rule;
(iv) Issue such other writ, direction or order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. When the matter is called out, there is no appearance on behalf of the Petitioner.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1, who submits that Justice (Retd.) Shri Bansi Lal Bhat, who was appointed as Officiating Chairman of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and whose appointment was assailed in the present petition, is no longer holding the said office and the relief sought is now infructuous.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission, we are of the view that the relief sought in the writ petition has become infructuous and no purpose will be served in keeping the same pending.
5. Petition is accordingly disposed of along with pending applications.
The principle of quo warranto was applied to determine the validity of the appointment of the officiating Chairman of the NCLAT.
The selection of NCLAT Technical Members must adhere to statutory qualifications, and courts cannot substitute the decisions of expert committees unless serious misconduct is alleged.
Enforcement of judicial directions requires timely action from lower courts; supervisory powers of higher courts can compel compliance when justice is delayed.
Courts will not entertain pleas for extension of tenures when members have accepted initial appointments and when such extension would interfere with ongoing selection processes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adjudicatory experience and the role of the Search-cum-Selection Committee in making recommendations for the appointment of the C....
Order passed contrary to rules and in violation of natural justice is liable to be set aside.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
