Delhi High Court
Dalbir Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 2 August, 2013
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.783/2001
DALBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Viraj R. Datar with Mr. S.K. Das,
& Mr. Mayank Mikhail Mukherjee,
Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pramod Gupta, Adv. for R-4&5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
% ORDER
02.08.2013
Review Petition No.349/2012 in W.P.(C) No.783/2001.
1. The petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 30th March, 2012
dismissing the writ petition preferred by the petitioner impugning the order
dated 4th January, 2001 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.1276/1997.
2. It is inter alia the ground in the review petition that though the senior
counsel for the petitioner intended to during the hearing on 16 th February,
2012 make several alternate submissions but upon one of the legal
submissions only as to the interpretation of the rules being made, the counsel
for the respondents were called upon to respond and for which purpose the
matter was adjourned to 1st March, 2012; that on 1st March, 2012 after
hearing the counsels for the respondents on the said legal submission, orders
were reserved. It is further stated that the senior counsel for the petitioner
was not even available on 1st March, 2012 and did not have an opportunity
to even rejoin and for this purpose only written submissions were permitted
to be filed; that though written submissions urging all the grounds were filed
but the writ petition has been dismissed disagreeing with the interpretation
of the rules urged by the petitioner and without considering any of the other
aspects and rather recording that no other ground had been urged or pressed.
With respect to the interpretation of the rules also it is contended that the
contention, that the challenge to the vires of the rules sought by way of
amendment of the OA before the CAT was not adjudicated, has not been
considered. It is yet further contended that the amendment to the rules at
page 60 of the paper book has not been considered.
3. Notice of the review petition was issued. The respondents have not
only filed replies but have today also vehemently opposed the review
petition.
4. We may record that on the date when notice of the review petition
was issued, the same senior counsel who had argued on behalf of the
petitioner on 16th February, 2012 had appeared. Also, fortunately the notes
made by one of us (Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J) during the hearings still exist on
the file and which bear out that the petitioner was not heard in rejoinder. It is
not disputed that the written submissions filed as permitted are on various
other aspects.
5. We are of the view that the aforesaid alone constitutes a ground for
review.
6. The review petition is therefore allowed and disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.783/2001.
7. The review petition having been allowed, list the writ petition for
directions before the Roster Bench on 12th August, 2013.
GITA MITTAL, J
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
AUGUST 2nd, 2013
pp..
