JUDGEMENT

MINI PUSHKARNA, J: (ORAL) CM APPL. 20936/2024

1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 5107/2024 & CM APPL. 20935/2024

3. The present petition has been filed seeking prayer for setting aside the communication dated 22nd September, 2023 issued by respondent no.2/Qutab Golf Course, whereby the application made by the petitioner for tenure membership under ‘Deputation/Government Category’ was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for playing rights/ membership under the Government Category. Thus, the petitioner prays for direction to the respondents to re-consider the application and representation of the petitioner for playing rights/ membership to respondent no.2/ Qutab Golf Course under the Government Category.

4. The facts of the case as canvassed in the present writ petition are that the respondent no.1/ Delhi Development Authority (DDA) issued a Public Notice inviting application for limited number of tenure (three years and five years) playing rights and membership in Qutab Golf Course for total of 500 slots. Out of the aforesaid 500 slots, 100 slots were offered in Government Category, where, in order to qualify under this category, an applicant must be a government servant, whose pay and allowances/pension are drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner filled an application form for securing membership for tenure of five years, under deputation/government category slot offered by the respondents.

Subsequently, the petitioner received an e-mail dated 03rd August, 2023 and e-mail dated 07th August, 2023 from respondent No.2 asking the petitioner to submit documents in relation to her application. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner promptly submitted the required documents as requested by respondent no. 2 and intimated about the same to respondent No.2 vide e-mail communication dated 08th August, 2023 and 12th August,

2023.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner after a few days on 22nd September, 2023, received a communication from respondent no. 2 whereby the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible in the category as applied, on the basis of the documents supplied by the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the aforesaid communication dated 22nd September, 2023 issued by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner, is cryptic and non-speaking in nature.

8. He submits that the petitioner is an employee of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and was working with the Petroleum Planning & Analysis Cell of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Government of India, on deputation from the HPCL.

9. Attention of this Court has been drawn to Section 16 of the Oil Industry (Development) Act, 1974, to submit that the petitioner is drawing her salary from the Consolidated Fund of India and the Central Government, thereby fulfilling the criteria for grant of membership under the Government Category.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Resolution dated 30th September, 2002 issued by the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas. He relies upon Para 2 and 3 of the said Resolution, which reads as under:

“xxx xxx xxx

2. While a statutory regulator would be in place post APM to take care of most of the areas requiring intervention, the Government would still need to discharge some of the functions, presently being performed by the OCC, as such functions would continue to remain within the domain of the Government. Thus, it has been decided to create a “Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell” effective 1st April, 2002, to be attached to the Ministry and assist inter alia in the discharge of following functions:

(a) Administration of subsidy on PDS Kerosene and domestic LPG and freigh