Delhi High Court
Sarvjit Singh Slaria vs Union Of India & Ors. on 16 May, 2016
Author: Hima Kohli
$~6 to 10, 12 and 13.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8436/2015 and CM APPL.18076/2015
SARVJIT SINGH SLARIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate with
Mr. H.S. Tiwari, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with
Mr. Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Advocate and
Mr. Vihag Snehal, SAO/QTR.
+ W.P.(C) 8441/2015 and CM APPL. 18084/2015
RAJEEV SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate with
Mr. H.S. Tiwari, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with
Mr. Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Advocate and
Mr. Vihag Snehal, SAO/QTR.
+ W.P.(C) 8442/2015 and 18085/2015
RAM KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate with
Mr. H.S. Tiwari, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with
Mr. Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Advocate and
Mr. Vihag Snehal, SAO/QTR.
WP(C) 8436/2015 and connected matters Page 1 of 4
+ W.P.(C) 8444/2015 and CM APPL. 18088/2015
COL NAVNEET SRIVASTAVA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate with
Mr. H.S. Tiwari, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with
Mr. Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Advocate and
Mr. Vihag Snehal, SAO/QTR.
+ W.P.(C) 8477/2015 and CM APPL. 18191/2015
ADIT SAXENA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate with
Mr. H.S. Tiwari, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with
Mr. Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Advocate and
Mr. Vihag Snehal, SAO/QTR.
+ W.P.(C) 9046/2015 and CM APPL. 20459/2015
LT CL J S RAWAT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate with
Mr. H.S. Tiwari, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC
WP(C) 8436/2015 and connected matters Page 2 of 4
+ W.P.(C) 9634/2015 and CM APPL. 22848/2015
COL A P S HANSI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate with
Mr. H.S. Tiwari, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vivekanand Mishra, Senior Panel
Counsel, UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 16.05.2016
1. Pursuant to the order dated 31.03.2016, counsels for the respondents
state on instructions that offers for accommodations have been made to the
petitioners in the present batch of matters but none of them have reverted
back with the requisite NACs.
2. Counsel for the petitioners explains that when the petitioners had
approached the Station Headquarters for obtaining NACs, certain queries
had been raised and information sought, which was duly furnished by them
in the second week of April, 2016, but even thereafter, the NACs have not
been received by them due to which the petitioners could not respond to the
offers of allotment made by the CAO.
3. Counsels for the respondents state on instructions that the NACs shall
be issued to the petitioners within three weeks and if further requirements
are to be fulfilled by them, the same shall be duly intimated to them within
one week from today, so that they can do the needful and revert back to the
respondents for obtaining the requisite NACs.
4. We are informed that the petitioners are ordinarily granted two
months' time to furnish the NACs. Therefore the NACs can be furnished
even after the petitioners shift to their new accommodations. Counsels for
the respondents assure us that in any case, NACs shall be issued to the
petitioners within three weeks from today. Therefore, furnishing of NACs
does not appear to be an impediment for accepting offers of
accommodations made available by the respondents.
5. It has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioners as to whether
the petitioners are ready and willing to accept the offers made by the
respondents for allotment of accommodations, to which the reply is in the
affirmative. He submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to accept
the accommodations offered to them and they shall shift by 15.06.2016.
6. The petitioners are directed to shift to the accommodations allotted
to them by the respondents on or before 15.06.2016. If they do not do so
within the stipulated timeline, then market rent shall be leviable thereafter in
respect of the accommodations under their occupation.
7. The petitions are disposed of alongwith the pending applications. No
orders as to costs.
DASTI to the counsels for the respondents for compliance.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MAY 16, 2016
rkb/mk
