Hindu College And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4761 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  W.P.(C) No.4887/1999

%                                                   11th October, 2013

HINDU COLLEGE AND ORS.                                     ..... Petitioners
                 Through:                None.


                          Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                                    ...Respondents
                  Through:               None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           This writ petition is filed by the petitioner no.1-college seeking

direction against the respondent no.2/National Commission for Scheduled

Castes/Scheduled Tribes to desist from carrying out any further enquiry in

respect of the representation dated 28.12.1998 received from the respondent

no.4.

2.           The complaint which was filed by the respondent no.4 is not a

complaint by any SC/ST employee but a complaint against them. Therefore,

there does not arise an issue of the respondent no.4 looking into any

W.P.(C) No.4887 /1999                                             Page 1 of 3
 violation of the rights of the SC/ST employees.

3.           Respondent no.2 on the basis of the complaint of respondent

no.4 sent a notice to the Principal of the petitioner no.1-college to personally

appear, however, the issue really was of proper representation alongwith

documents and the necessary representation was made before the respondent

no.2 and filing of documents which were done. Therefore, there does not

arise an issue of directing personal appearance of the petitioner no.2.

4.           It may also be stated that Supreme Court in the judgment in the

case of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare

Assn. Vs. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 606 has held that respondent no.2

has no powers like the civil court to issue directions or injunctions.

5.           In view of the aforesaid facts, respondent no.2 has no power to

proceed against with respect to representation dated 28.12.1998 as there is

no issue of any violation of any rights of a member of scheduled castes or

scheduled tribes.   Also, once necessary representation exists on behalf of

the petitioner no.1-college before the respondent no.2, and necessary

documents are filed, there is no need for personal appearance of the

Principal of college.

6.           Writ petition is therefore allowed and it is directed that no

further proceedings be taken by the respondent no.2 with respect to the

W.P.(C) No.4887 /1999                                              Page 2 of 3
 representation dated 28.12.1998 received by the respondent no.2 from the

respondent no.4. No direction be also issued by the respondent no.2 for

personal appearance of the Principal of college. Writ petition is accordingly

allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




OCTOBER 11, 2013                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne