Delhi High Court
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd And ... vs T.R.K.R. Kumhar And Ors on 25 May, 2016
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 25th May, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 4757/2016
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD AND ANR
..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Saiful Islam and Mr.Sarfaraz
Khan, Advs.
versus
T.R.K.R. KUMHAR AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Puneet Verma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J (ORAL)
C.M.Nos. 19847-48/2016 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4757/2016 & C.M.Nos. 19849/2016 (Stay)
1. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, impugns order dated 5th May,
2014 passed in O.A.No. 3419/2012 and order dated 21 st April, 2016 passed
in R.A.No.181/2015.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent has entered appearance on
advance notice. With the consent of the counsel, we have taken up the writ
petition for hearing.
3. The earlier order dated 5th May, 2014 passed by the Tribunal in
O.A.No. 3419/2012 was made subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.
6539/2015 titled as Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited & Ors. vs.
T.R.K.R. Kumhar and Ors. This writ petition was disposed of vide order
dated 10th July, 2015, recording:
"Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave
to withdraw the present petition on the ground that the pleas
raised by the petitioner with regard to the limitation and
resjudicata have not been considered by the tribunal. Without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter and on the
questions of limitation and resjudicata (sic), Writ petition
stands dismissed as withdrawn.
In case the review petition is filed within 10 days from
today, we hope that the plea of limitation would not come in
the way of the review petition.
Order dasti under the signatures of Court Master."
Consequently, MTNL had filed R.A. No. 181/2015. The second
impugned order dated 21st April, 2016 dismisses the review application,
inter alia, holding that the power of review is limited and confined to the
grounds under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read
with Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The application
for review was beyond the scope and ambit of the aforesaid Order and
Section. Observations are also being made on the plea of res judicata and
limitation, and whether they were specifically raised, for the order under
review dated 5th May, 2014 did not refer to the said two pleas.
4. Learned counsel who appears on advance notice states that in view of
the order dated 10th July, 2014 and in order to settle and bring the
controversy to an end, with their consent the order dated 5th May, 2014 may
be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.
We also notice that the order dated 5th May, 2014 does not refer to the
starting point for payment of interest.
5. In view of the statement made by the counsel for the respondent, we
set aside the impugned order dated 5th May, 2014 with an order of remand to
the Tribunal to decide the O.A.No.3419/2012 afresh. Consequently, the
order dated 5th May, 2014 is set aside with consent. The order dated 21st
April, 2016 passed in the R.A. would not survive.
6. We clarify that it will be open to the respondents to raise all
contentions including the plea that principles of res judicata and limitation
would not arise for consideration, particularly, when the petitioner had
agreed to make the payment and the surviving issue pertains to payment of
interest.
7. Parties will appear before the Tribunal on 7th July, 2016, when a date
of hearing will be fixed. Parties state that they would request the Tribunal to
take up the matter expeditiously as a limited issue arises for consideration.
8. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending
application also stands disposed of. We clarify that we have not expressed
any view on merits. The Tribunal would not be influenced by the impugned
orders.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
MAY 25, 2016
mr
