Aakash Deep Chakravarti vs Union Of India & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6613 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+         W.P.(C) 8697/2014 & CMs 20015-16/2014

                                    Date of decision: 09.12.2014

IN THE MATTER OF:
AAKASH DEEP CHAKRAVARTI                       ..... Petitioner
                  Through : Mr. Shankar Raju with
                  Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocates

                        versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                           ..... Respondents
                    Through : Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Adv. for R-1.
                    Mr. Nikhil Nayyar with
                    Ms. Pratima Gupta, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying

inter alia for issuance of directions to the respondent No.1/Ministry of

Communication & IT and the respondent No.2/Delhi Electricity

Regulatory Commission (DERC) to implement the order dated

30.9.2014 and appoint him as an Executive Director (Law) on

deputation basis for a period of three years. The petitioner also seeks

quashing of the order dated 11.11.2014 addressed by the respondent

No.2 to the respondent No.1.

2. At the outset, counsel for the respondent No.1 hands over a

copy of the letter dated 21.11.2014 addressed, by the respondent

No.1 to the respondent No.2, informing the latter that the petitioner

was not eligible for deputation on the post of Executive Director (Law)

as he had just finished the permissible tenure of seven years at a

stretch for deputation outside the Department of Posts and has not

completed the mandatory cooling off period of three years in the

department, as per the extant instructions issued by the DOPT. He

also hands over a copy of the letter dated 26.11.2014 addressed by

the respondent No.2/DERC to the respondent No.1/Ministry, with a

copy marked to the petitioner which states that the respondent

No.2/DERC had considered the matter and given its approval to

withdraw and cancel the offer to the post of Executive Director (Law),

made to the petitioner in view of the communication dated

21.11.2014 addressed by the respondent No.1. The aforesaid

documents are taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 states that there is not

a whisper in the petition with regard to the aforesaid correspondence,

though the petitioner was kept in the loop.

4. Mr. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner explains that on

account of a bereavement in the family, the petitioner was out of

town between 26th November, 2014 and 5th December, 2014 and on

returning, he was apprised of the aforesaid communication, but by

then, the present petition had already been filed. He states that in

view of the changed circumstances, the petitioner may be granted

leave to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to assail the orders

dated 21.11.2014 and 26.11.2014, in accordance with law.

5. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The present petition is

dismissed as withdrawn, along with the pending applications.

                                                     (HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 09, 2014                                       JUDGE
sk