Delhi High Court
Jagran Prakashan Limited And Anr. vs Union Of India on 12 March, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7873/2014
JAGRAN PRAKASHAN LIMITED & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. P.V. Kapur, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
S. Kapur and Mr. Joydeep Bhambhani, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Ms.
Sanjugeeta Moktan and Ms. Mahima Bahl,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 12.03.2015
CM No.4259/2015 (early hearing)
1. With the consent of the parties, the captioned application for early
hearing is allowed.
2. The petition is put on board for hearing.
W.P.(C) 7873/2014 and CM No.18469/2014
3. By way of this writ petition, a challenge is laid to the order dated
05.08.2014. By the impugned order, petitioner no.2's application to
continue to hold an office or a place of profit at an increased remuneration
for a period of 5 years with effect from 01.10.2013 to 30.09.2018 was
rejected.
4. Rejection, it appears, is based on the fact that the petitioner no.2 was
working as a Director in other companies, and thus, was not in exclusive
employment of petitioner no.1 company; which according to the respondents
is a statutory requirement under the Director's Relatives (Office or Place of
Profit) Rules, 2011.
5. It is not disputed by Mr. Makhija, the learned counsel for the
respondents that this order was passed without according a hearing to the
petitioners herein. Mr. Makhija cannot but submit that this order entails
civil consequences.
6. Mr. Kapur, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners says that in
so far as petitioner no.2 was concerned, permission was accorded on the
same facts, twice, i.e., in 2005 and 2008. It is also Mr. Kapur's contention
that in the application filed with the respondents, in particular, in Annexure
VII, it was indicated that petitioner no.2 was a non-Executive Director in
companies to which there is an oblique reference in the impugned order.
6.1 In other words, it is Mr. Kapur's contention that neither petitioner
no.2 was getting remuneration from the companies referred to in Annexure
VII nor, was he spending any time qua management of the said companies.
7. Therefore, in these circumstances, what would have to be ascertained
by the concerned authority is as to whether the submissions made
hereinabove, on behalf of petitioner no.2, were grounded in facts. The
impugned order, as indicated above, was passed without hearing the
petitioners, and therefore, the aforementioned aspect as well as other aspects
raised in the petition were obviously not noticed by the concerned officer,
who passed the impugned order. The consequences of assertions made in
Annexure VII of the application are not noticed in the impugned order,
leading to a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. This error could have
occurred, possibly, for two reasons. First, prolixity of the record. Second,
on account of failure of the respondents to seek participation of the
petitioners in the proceedings.
8. Therefore, in view of the above, the impugned order is set aside
having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The
respondents will, thus, issue a notice to the petitioners fixing a date on
which they can present themselves for hearing in the matter.
9. With the aforesaid observations in place, the captioned petition and
the pending application are disposed of.
10. Needless to say, I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
case. Consequently, the date already fixed in the matter i.e., 24.04.2015
stands cancelled.
11. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 12, 2015
Yg
