Delhi High Court - Orders
Man Singh And Others vs Amit Biswas & Anr on 3 November, 2020
Author: Hima Kohli
Bench: Hima Kohli, Subramonium Prasad
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 638/2020
MAN SINGH AND OTHERS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vivek Chib, Mr. Asif Ahmad, Mr. Vikhyat
Oberoi and Ms. Precheta Kar, Advocates.
versus
AMIT BISWAS & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,
CGSC with Mr. Sahaj Garg and Mr. Amit Gupta,
Advocates for UOI.
Mr. T. Singhdev, Ms. Michelle B. Das, Mr. Abhijit
Chakravarty and Ms. Sumangla Swami, Advocates
for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 03.11.2020 HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING C.M. No. 26037/2020 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions CONT.CAS(C) 638/2020, C.M. No. 26036/2020 (by the petitioners seeking ex-parte ad interim relief)
1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners stating inter alia that the respondents No.1/Under Secretary, Govt of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the respondent No.2/Secretary, National Medical Commission (in short 'NMC') are in breach of the order dated CONT. CAS (C) 638/2020 Page 1 of 3 14.11.2019 passed in W.P.(C) 11705/2019.
2. Mr. Sethi, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners states that vide order dated 14.11.2019, while issuing notice in the captioned writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging the vires of Section 60 of the NMC Act, 2019, the court had directed that till the next date of hearing, the respondent No.1/Ministry of Health and Family Welfare shall maintain status quo in respect of the services of all the 94 petitioners. Learned Sr. Advocate submits that despite the aforesaid order, the respondent No.1 has recently issued an order dated 05.10.2020, informing all officers/employees of the erstwhile Medical Council of India that since the provisions of the NMC Act, 2019 have come into effect and the NMC has been constituted vide Notification dated 24.9.2020, officers and employees of the MCI are required to vacate their offices with immediate effect. The order ends by recording that their services will be continued subject to any directions by the High Court. It is submitted that the aforesaid order is nothing but a blatant attempt on the part of the respondent No.1 to circumvent the order dated 14.11.2019 passed in W.P.(C) 11705/2019.
3. Learned Sr. Advocate further states that under the directions of the respondent No.2, the petitioners have not been permitted to enter the office premises with effect from 07.10.2020. Not only this, upon taking over the office on 25.9.2020, the new Management has made the office computers of the petitioners dysfunctional and have also removed the biometric attendance system from the office premises.
4. We are prima facie of the opinion that by issuing the order dated 05.10.2020 and taking other steps referred to hereinabove, the respondents No.1 and 2 have attempted to frustrate the order dated 14.11.2019 passed in CONT. CAS (C) 638/2020 Page 2 of 3 W.P.(C) 11705/2019.
5. Issue notice.
6. Mr. Vaidyanathan, learned CGSC accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. Singhdev, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Replies to the contempt petition be filed within two weeks with copies to learned counsel for the petitioners, who may file rejoinders thereto within two weeks thereafter.
7. Till the next date of hearing, operation of the order dated 05.10.2020 issued by the respondent No.1 shall remain stayed. Further, the computers of the petitioners shall be made functional forthwith and so shall the biometric attendance machine for them to mark their attendance in the office of the respondent No.2, as they were doing earlier.
8. We may clarify that the aforesaid order is being passed in the light of the submission made by Mr. Singhdev, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/NMC that it is on the directions of the respondent No.1 that the respondent No.2 has been disbursing the monthly salaries to all the 94 petitioners. That being the position, there is no good reason why public money should be frittered away by preventing the petitioners from discharging their duties as they were doing on 14.11.2019.
10. List along with W.P.(C) No. 11705/2019.
HIMA KOHLI, J SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J NOVEMBER 3, 2020 ap/rkb CONT. CAS (C) 638/2020 Page 3 of 3