Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Dinesh Chandra vs Preeti Sudan &Amp Anr on 20 December, 2019

                                     1          CP No. 14/2019 in OA No. 3833/2018



          CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
            PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI


                    CP No. 14/2019
                            in
                   OA No. 3833/2018
        New Delhi this the 20th December, 2019
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE VIJAY LAKSHMI MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. PRADEEP KUMAR MEMBER (A)

Dinesh Chandra (aged 39 yrs., Group-D),
S/o Late Naik Sh. Stya Parkash,
R/o H.No.K-1/95, 2nd Floor,
Gali No.7, Gurdwara Road,
Mohan Garden Extension,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059

                                                  ....Applicant
(None for the applicant )

                            VERSUS

1.   Ms. Preeti Sudan,
     Secretary, Ministry of Health,
     Union of India, Nirman Bhawan,
     New Delhi-110011.

2.   Sh. Ashok Kumar Harit,
     Medical Council of India,
     Through its Director,
     Sector-8, Pocket 14, Dwarka,
     New Delhi-110077.
                                            ........Respondents

(By Advocate: Sh. R. K. Jain for R-1
               Ms. Arunima Pal for Sh. T. Singhdev for R-2)
                                       2           CP No. 14/2019 in OA No. 3833/2018



                     ORDER (ORAL)

BY HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE VIJAY LAKSHMI MEMBER (J)

1. No one is present for the applicant even in the revised call. The order sheet shows that the applicant is not appearing since several dates. On 05.07.2019 and thereafter on 21.10.2019, the applicant was given last chance in the interest of justice. Despite that, he is still not present today.

2. Learned counsels for the respondents have submitted that the respondents were directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the representation of the applicant which they have already passed within the stipulated period, copy whereof has been annexed with their compliance affidavit.

3. As the order has been complied with by the respondents and the applicant is not appearing, it appears that he has lost interest to peruse the CP further. Hence, the CP stands closed. Notices are discharged.




     (PRADEEP KUMAR)                      (JUSTICE VIJAY LAKSHMI)
       MEMBER (A)                                      MEMBER (J)



 /pinky/