Delhi High Court
Upras Vidyalaya & Ors vs Amit Singhla & Anr on 1 December, 2015
Author: Manmohan
28 to 37
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 660/2012 & CM APPLs. 17165/2012 AND 6792/2013
UPRAS VIDYALAYA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Dr. S.N. Singh, General Secretary of
petitioner.
versus
AMIT SINGHLA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Advocate for GNCT of
Delhi.
with
+ CONT.CAS(C) 794/2012
UPRAS VIDYALAYA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Dr. S.N. Singh, General Secretary of
petitioner.
versus
AMIT SINGLA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Advocate for GNCT of
Delhi.
With
+ CONT.CAS(C) 883/2012
UPRAS VIDYALAYA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Dr. S.N. Singh, General Secretary of
petitioner.
versus
AMIT SINGLA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Advocate for GNCT of
Delhi.
With
CONT. CAS(C) 660/2012 & Ors. Page 1 of 5
+ CONT.CAS(C) 212/2013
UPRAS VIDYALAYA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Dr. S.N. Singh, General Secretary of
petitioner.
versus
AMIT SINGLA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Advocate for GNCT of
Delhi.
With
+ CONT.CAS(C) 395/2013
UPRAS VIDYALAYA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Dr. S.N. Singh, General Secretary of
petitioner.
versus
DR MADHU RANI TEOTIA, ADDL DIRECTOR
OF EDUCATION (ACT-I) & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Advocate for GNCT of
Delhi.
With
+ CONT.CAS(C) 445/2013
UPRAS VIDYALAYA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Dr. S.N. Singh, General Secretary of
petitioner.
versus
MRS INDIRA RANI SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Advocate for GNCT of
Delhi.
With
+ CONT.CAS(C) 651/2013
UPRAS VIDYALAYA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Dr. S.N. Singh, General Secretary of
petitioner.
versus
SHRI JANG BAHADUR SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Advocate for GNCT of
Delhi.
CONT. CAS(C) 660/2012 & Ors. Page 2 of 5
With
+ CONT.CAS(C) 690/2013
UPRAS VIDYALAYA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Dr. S.N. Singh, General Secretary of
petitioner.
versus
DR A YASMEEN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Advocate for GNCT of
Delhi.
With
+ CONT.CAS(C) 265/2014
UPRAS VIDYALAYA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Dr. S.N. Singh, General Secretary of
petitioner.
versus
MS PADMINI SINGHLA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Advocate
for GNCT of Delhi.
And
+ CONT.CAS(C) 531/2014
UPRAS VIDYALAYA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Dr. S.N. Singh, General Secretary of
petitioner.
versus
DR. AFSHAN YASHMIN & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Advocate for GNCT of
Delhi.
% Date of Decision : 1st December, 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
CONT. CAS(C) 660/2012 & Ors. Page 3 of 5
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Today once again Dr. S.D. Singh, General Secretary of the petitioners
prays for an adjournment on the ground that petitioner's counsel has not fully
recovered from Dengue.
2. On the last date of hearing, on the same request this Court had adjourned
the matters. However, this Court had clarified on the last date of hearing that no
adjournment would be granted today.
3. Moreover, as the petitioners have had enough time to make alternative
arrangements, this Court disallows the plea for adjournment.
4. It is pertinent to mention that the present batch of contempt petitions has
been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the interim orders dated 20th July, 2012
and 22nd August, 2012 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)
4308/2012.
5. By the said orders, the interim relief in favour of the petitioners was
declined due to serious allegations against the petitioners.
6. However, to ensure that the working of the school did not come to a
standstill, a representative of the petitioner No.1-school was directed to approach
the Deputy Director for release of payments.
7. The Deputy Director was directed to consider the said request and permit
the school to make such payments as he/she may deem fit for the day-to-day
running of the school.
8. In the present batch of petitions, it has been alleged that in utter disregard
of the aforesaid interim orders, the respondents did not release the payments in
order to disrupt the smooth functioning of the school at the behest of one Mr.
Baleshwar Rai, ex-Director of Education, GNCT of Delhi with malafide intent.
9. However, upon a conjoint reading of the orders dated 20th July, 2012 and
22nd August, 2012, this Court is of the opinion that not only the interim relief was
declined to the petitioners, but absolute discretion was given to the respondents'
officials to release the payments. There was no legal vested right in the petitioners
to claim that any payment should be released.
10. The allegations of malafide and pressure being exerted by Mr. Baleshwar
Rai are completely unfounded. In fact, upon perusal of the paper books, this
Court is of the opinion that the present contempt petitions had been filed as a
matter of strategy to coerce and arm-twist the officials of the respondent.
11. Consequently, present contempt petitions and applications are dismissed
and the notices issued are discharged.
MANMOHAN, J
DECEMBER 01, 2015
js
