Delhi High Court
Kartar Singh And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 23 September, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
29+ W.P.(C) 6676/2011 & CM No.13486/2011 (for stay)
MAHABIR SINGH AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. H.M. Singh, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv.with Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Adv. for R-1.
Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv. DDA.
AND
30+ W.P.(C) 6677/2011 & CM No.13488/2011 (for stay)
KARTAR SINGH AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. H.M. Singh, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv.with Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Adv. for R-1.
Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv. DDA.
AND
31+ W.P.(C) 6678/2011 & CM No.13490/2011 (for stay)
GORDHAN SINGH AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. H.M. Singh, Adv.
Versus
UNIION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv.with Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Adv. for R-1.
Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv. DDA.
AND
32+ W.P.(C) 6679/2011 & CM No.13492/2011 (for stay)
GHEESA RAM AND ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. H.M. Singh, Adv. 1/-
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv.with Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Adv. for R-1.
Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv. DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 23.09.2011
1. The petitions have been filed seeking mandamus to the respondents to release and pay interest on solatium to the petitioners in terms of the order dated 5th August, 2010 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6286/2010 filed by some other persons.
2. Attention of the counsel for the petitioners is invited to para 7 of the order of the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court has observed that the writ petitions filed in that case were in fact not maintainable and the remedy was to file an execution claiming interest, since in that case 12 years had not expired.
3. It has as such been enquired from the counsel for the petitioners as to how the remedy if any of the petitioners can be by way of these writ petitions when the Supreme Court itself in the order relied upon has held that the claim has to be by way of execution only and it is for the executing court to consider whether the execution to be so preferred is within time or not.
4. The counsel for the petitioners however invites attention to ground 'F' in the writ petition where it is stated that the executing court in executions preferred by some other persons similarly situated as the petitioners herein, has taken a stand that the order aforesaid of the Supreme Court applies only 2/-
to the persons before the Supreme Court and not to others. On the basis of the said plea it is argued that the execution is not the appropriate remedy.
5. However without the petitioners herein even filing execution and without any order of the executing court to the said effect, no reliance can be placed on the said plea. Moreover even if the executing court denies the relief to the petitioners, the petitioners will then have remedy of appeal thereagainst and the writ petition would even then be not maintainable.
6. The senior counsel for the respondent no.1 appearing on advance notice has further contended that there may be other oppositions also to the claim of the petitioners viz. of satisfaction of the decree having been recorded etc.
7. Be that as it may, in view of the aforesaid the writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioners to approach the executing court and with the clarification that the respondents in opposition thereto shall be entitled to take all pleas available to them in law. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J
SEPTEMBER 23, 2011
pp.. 3/-