Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Madhur Kant Tulsian And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 9 March, 2022

Author: Rajiv Shakdher

Bench: Rajiv Shakdher, Jasmeet Singh

                          $~16
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +    W.P.(C) 13998/2019 & CM APPL. 24425/2021
                               MADHUR KANT TULSIAN AND ORS.               ......Petitioners
                                                Through: Mr M K Bhardwaj, Ms Alisha Saini
                                                         and Ms Ridam Arora, Advocates
                                                versus
                               UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                    ......Respondents
                                                Through: Ms Sriparna Chatterjee, Advocate for
                                                         R-4 to 19.
                               CORAM:
                               HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                               HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
                                          ORDER

% 09.03.2022 [Physical Court Hearing/ Hybrid Hearing (As per request)]

1. We are told that pursuant to the orders dated 05.08.2021 and 08.02.2022, the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short, "the Tribunal"] has heard final arguments in O.A. No. 3705/2019 and, accordingly, decision in the matter have been reserved.

2. To be noted, the petitioners had approached this Court against an interim order dated 24.12.2019, passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A. 2.1 It is not disputed that against the said interim order dated 24.12.2019, the petitioners had filed an application for vacation of the same, which was partially allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 04.03.2021.

3. To be noted, in the writ petition, the first prayer made is to quash the Tribunal's interim order dated 24.12.2019. 3.1. Ms Sriparna Chatterjee, who appears on behalf of private respondent nos. 4 to 19, says that the order dated 24.12.2019 has merged with the order dated 04.03.2021. We tend to agree with Ms Chatterjee on this score.

4. Insofar as prayer clause (ii) is concerned, Mr MK Bhardwaj, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, says that the petitioners do not wish to press the same, and that they would take their chance with the official respondents.

4.1 In case the petitioners make a representation, the official respondents will render a decision on the representation, albeit as per law.

5. This leaves us with the last prayer i.e., prayer clause (iii) of the writ petition, for awarding exemplary costs.

5.1 We are of the view that no occasion has arisen for imposing costs.

6. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Consequently, pending application shall stand closed.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J JASMEET SINGH, J MARCH 9, 2022 sr Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 13998/2019 2/2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:14.03.2022 18:09:35