Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20.The learned counsel further invited the attention of the court to the various orders passed by the Delhi High Court from time SCA/18842/2011 16/34 ORDER to time in the above referred writ petition. Referring to the order dated 9.9.2009 whereby the learned Assistant Solicitor General was directed till further orders not to execute/renew any lease except in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Shipping in 2004, it was submitted that the said order was never vacated. Inviting attention to the order dated 23.2.2011, it was pointed out that it has been directed that the interim order passed on an earlier occasion shall remain in force until further orders. It was submitted that the Delhi High Court is in seisin of the matter and is monitoring the same and as such, any interim relief granted by this court would be in direct conflict with the directions issued by the Delhi High Court. It was submitted that the petitioners have been communicated that by orders dated 13.7.2010 and 27.7.2010 as the case may be, the competent authority - Union of India has extended their leases till 31.3.2011. It was submitted that the said orders also fly in the face of the orders passed by the Delhi High Court and as such the officer who has passed the orders is under a serious cloud. It was urged that in keeping with judicial comity, unless there is a variation of the order of the Delhi High Court in the matter of auction, extension and in the matter of expectation that all proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, would be concluded within three months from the order dated 11 th January, 2010, this court ought not to grant any interim relief as any order of protection that may be passed by this court would be contradictory to the orders passed by the Delhi High Court. It was submitted that an order without jurisdiction does not bear any seal of invalidity unless the same is expressly set aside. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Krishnadevi Malchand SCA/18842/2011 17/34 ORDER Kamathia and others v. Bombay Environmental Action Group and others, (2011) 3 SCC 363, and more particularly paragraph 16 thereof, to submit that it is a settled legal proposition that even if an order is void, it requires to be so declared by a competent forum and it is not permissible for any person to ignore the same merely because in his opinion, the order is void. It was submitted that the competent forum to say that the order of the Delhi High Court is bad is the Supreme Court which is the appropriate forum. Under the circumstances, the respondent authorities are bound by the orders passed by the Delhi High Court and as such, the respondents would be put in an embarrassing position if orders contradictory to the directions issued by the Delhi High Court are passed by this court in the present petitions. It was submitted that in all the cases, the leases have been extended till 31.3.2011 and vide order dated 13.7.2010 in the case of the writ petitioners in Special Civil Application No.18843 of 2011 and vide order dated 27.7.2010 in cases of other writ petitioners, and the said orders are duly communicated to the petitioners. Inviting attention to the reliefs claimed in the petitions, it was pointed out that the orders dated 13.7.2010 and 27.7.2010 are not subject matter of challenge in any of the petitions and that the said orders have been permitted to live through and the petitioners have acquiesced with the same.