Delhi High Court
Chairman & Managing Director, ... vs Raj Rani Choudhary on 7 August, 2015
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5832 /2015
% Judgment dated 7th August, 2015
CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARAT SANCHAR
NIGAM LIMITED & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Suryakant Singla with Mr. Shyam
Bhatnagar, Advocates.
versus
RAJ RANI CHOUDHARY ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Meenu Mainee, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Aggrieved by the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to "CAT") passed on 20.08.2014 has led to the filing of the present
writ petition. The main grievance of the counsel for the petitioners
(respondent before the CAT) was that the order dated 20.08.2014 was
passed without hearing the respondents.
2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that order dated 20.08.2014 shows that
the case was listed on 25.07.2014 and parties were heard whereas no date
was fixed for 25.07.2014, neither order sheet of 25.07.2014 is available on
record. It is submitted that in fact, when the matter was listed on
27.05.2014, it was adjourned to 30.07.2014.
3. On 29.05.2015, the original record of the CAT was called for. The
predecessor of this Court had passed the following order:
"By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated
14.01.2015 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
the 'learned Tribunal') in the Review Application No.5/2015 and
also the order dated 20.08.2014 passed by the learned Tribunal in
O.A. No.547/2013.
One of the main contentions raised by Mr. Suryakant
Singla, the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned
Tribunal has not given any opportunity to the petitioners and
have decided the O.A. in their absence. The learned counsel
submits that even a Review Application was preferred by the
petitioners vide RA No.5/2015 and the same too was dismissed
on the most untenable ground.
Inviting the attention of this Court to para No.4 of the order
dated 14.01.2015 passed in the Review Application, the learned
counsel submits that O.A. No.547/2013 was listed before the
learned Tribunal on 27.05.2014 and the same was adjourned for
30.07.2014. The O.A., somehow came to be listed on 03.07.2014
and thereafter the same was adjourned on several dates and
ultimately the learned Tribunal heard the arguments on
25.07.2014 and passed the final order vide order dated
20.08.2014. The learned counsel further submits that in the said
order dated 25.07.2014, the learned Tribunal had observed that
the learned counsel for both the parties were heard on 25.07.2014
and it is only after hearing both the learned counsel for parties,
that the matter was reserved for order but the fact of the matter is
that the learned counsel for the petitioners was never present
before the learned Tribunal on 25.07.2014. The learned counsel
for the petitioners further submits that the order-sheet of
25.07.2014 was found missing but yet the learned Tribunal did
not direct any enquiry as to how the court order was missing
from the records.
Before we hear this matter or direct notice on the
respondent, we direct the presence of Mr. K.P. Sundar Rao &
Associates, 18, Central Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi and
Ms. Meenu Mainee, 2A-33,34, GC Grand Vaibhav Khand, Indira
Puram, Ghaziabad, the learned counsel for the parties who had
appeared before the learned Tribunal, to appear before this Court
on the next date of hearing.
Records of the learned Tribunal be also placed before the
Court on the next date of hearing.
List this matter on 07.08.2015."
4. The original file has been received and we have examined the same.
5. The order sheets show that on 27.05.2014, the case was adjourned to
30.07.2014. However, it was listed on 03.07.2014 when none appeared for
any of the parties and the case was then adjourned to 09.07.2014, but the
case was listed on 15.07.2014, it was recorded that Ms. Meenu Maini,
counsel for the applicant appeared and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, counsel for the
respondents was also present. However, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, counsel
who is also present in Court submits that he was not present on 15.07.2014.
The order sheet dated 15.07.2014 reveals that on that date, the case was
directed to remain on board. It was again taken up on 16.07.2014, when
the following order was passed:
"None appears for the respondents. List the case on
25.07.2014, on which date if respondents are not present, the
matter would be heard ex-parte.
It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted."
6. Thereafter, the order sheets reveal that a final order was pronounced on
20.08.2014. It is strange that para 5 of the order dated 20.08.2014 reads
that counsel for the applicant Ms. Meenu Mainee and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
were heard, but no order sheet of 25.07.2014 is on record. We need to say
no further except that in view of the fact that Mr. Sanjeev Kumar has
submitted that he had no notice for 03.07.2014, 15.07.2014, 16.07.2014
and, there is no order sheet of 25.07.2014. Since no order sheet of
25.07.2015 is on record, we are left with no option but to set aside the order
dated 20.08.2014 passed by the CAT.
7. Parties to appear before the CAT on 31.08.2015. No further notice would
be issued to either of the parties. The original record be sent back
forthwith.
8. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
CM.APPL 10516/2015(stay)
9. Since the writ petition has been disposed of, the application also stands
disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
AUGUST 07, 2015
pst
