Brig. Balbir Singh Khandpur vs Uoi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 762 Del

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

                   Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3645/1996


                         Date of decision: 9th February, 2010

BRIG. BALBIR SINGH KHANDPUR                         ..... Petitioner
                    Through None

                         versus

UOI & ORS                   ..... Respondent

Through Ms. Barkha Babbar, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No

GITA MITTAL, J(Oral)

1. This petition has been listed on several dates when there has been no

appearance on behalf of the petitioner. On 19th January, 2010 we had requested

Ms. Barkha Babbar, learned counsel who represents the respondents to ascertain

the position that whether the Great Ex-Servicemen Services Private Limited

arrayed as petitioner no. 2 was still in existence. An affidavit dated 5 th February,

2010 has been filed wherein it is disclosed that the petitioner has left India and is

residing abroad. It has further been pointed out that as per the record of the

Registrar of Companies, one Preet Singh Khandpur and Mimrat Khandpur are the directors of Great Ex-Servicemen Services Private Limited.

2. Our attention is drawn to the bilateral agreement dated 17th July, 1987

(annexure R-2 at page 181) in respect of which the writ petition was filed. This

shows that Brig. Balbir Singh Khandpur (Retd.) had entered into this agreement

on behalf of not the petitioner no. 2 but on behalf of one Great Ex-Servicemen

Security and Transport Services Private Limited.

3. It is pointed out that Brig. Balbir Singh Khandpur, petitioner no.1 had

reached beyond the age of 60 years and for this reason, was not eligible in terms

of the communication dated 19th May, 1992 (page 183) which stipulated the

conditions for eligibility.

For all the foregoing reasons, it is apparent that the petitioners are not

interested in prosecution of the present case.

In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed.

GITA MITTAL, J

VIPIN SANGHI, J FEBRUARY 09, 2010d kr