Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Roshan Lal Lalit Mohan vs Union Of India And Anr on 8 April, 2022

Author: Yashwant Varma

Bench: Yashwant Varma

                          $~25
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      W.P.(C) 14271/2021 & CM APPL. 44969/2021
                                 ROSHAN LAL LALIT MOHAN                   ..... Petitioner
                                              Through: Ms.Tanmaya Mehta, Mr.Sourabh
                                                       Gupta, Mr.Puneet Yadav and
                                                       Ms.Vidhi Gain, Advs.

                                                    versus

                                 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR                     ..... Respondents
                                               Through: Mr.Shashank Bajpai, Sr. Panel
                                                        Counsel for UOI with Mr.Shubhankar
                                                        Singh, Adv. for R-1.
                                                        Mr.Aaditya Vijay Kumar and
                                                        Ms.Akshita Katoch, Advs. for R-2.

                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
                                                    ORDER

% 08.04.2022

1. This writ petition has been preferred for a direction commanding the respondent to act upon the OTS proposal which has been submitted by the petitioner herein. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 takes a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition referring to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in M/s National Agriculture Co. of Federation of India Limited (NAFED) vs. Nafed processed Food Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Emplyees Union and others [2001 (58) DRJ 799 (DB)]. In view of the principle laid down in that decision, learned counsel would contend that the writ petition against NAFED would not be maintainable.

2. Mr.Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner is not seeking any positive directions addressed against NAFED requiring it to accord approval to its OTS proposal. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court to a communication dated 27 August 2021 addressed to the competent authority in the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare which in turn has referred to a decision taken by the Board of Directors of NAFED on 25 September 2020 and requiring appropriate clarifications from the government on whether it should consider OTS proposals which are being placed for consideration.

3. In that view of the matter, the writ petition could be effectively disposed of with appropriate directions being confined to respondent No.1. In view of the above, the issue of maintainability of the writ petition need not be ruled upon at all.

4. Learned counsel representing the respondent No.1 states that subject to verification of all facts and contentions on merit being kept open, the communication of NAFED referred to hereinabove shall be duly attended to and an appropriate decision shall be communicated with expedition.

5. The writ petition shall consequently stand disposed of on the above terms.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

APRIL 8, 2022/bh Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:14.04.2022 16:33:15