Delhi High Court
Subhash Chandra Khurana & Ors vs Government Of National Capital ... on 15 February, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 15th February, 2019
+ LPA 108/2019, CM Nos. 7018-7020/2019
SUBHASH CHANDRA KHURANA & ORS
..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Vivek Chib, Adv. with
Ms. Pracheta Kar & Mr. Asif Ahmed,
Advs.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF
DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD with
Mr. Varun Kalia, Adv. with
Dr. Kiran, Tibbia College
+ LPA 109/2019, CM Nos. 7031-7033/2019
KULJIT SINGH & ORS
..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Vivek Chib, Adv. with
Ms. Pracheta Kar & Mr. Asif Ahmed,
Advs.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD with
Mr. Varun Kalia, Adv. with
Dr. Kiran, Tibbia College
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
W.P.(C) No. Page 1 of 5
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM Nos. 7019-7020/2019 in LPA 108/2019
CM Nos. 7032-7033/2019 in LPA 109/2019
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
LPA 108/2019 & LPA 109/2019
1. As these two appeals have been filed against a common
judgment dated December 04, 2018 whereby the learned Single Judge
has decided four writ petitions, which includes two writ petitions being
W.P.(C) 12377/2005 and W.P.(C) No. 6905/2014 from which these two
appeals arise, the same have been heard together and are being decided
by this common order.
2. The challenge in W.P.(C) No. 12377/2005 was to a notice dated
July 26, 2005 issued by the respondent No.3 directing the appellants to
immediately vacate the residential quarters in order that the same can be
demolished. The Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6905/2014 was filed
impugning the action of the respondents in demolishing the toilets /
latrines used by the appellants and also impugning the proposed action
of the respondents to demolish the residential premises / quarters
occupied by the appellants herein.
3. Mr. Chib has made detailed submissions on the impugned order
of the learned Single Judge, in both the appeals.
4. One of the submissions of Mr. Chib is by relying upon Section 5
of The Delhi Tibbia College (Take Over) Act, 1997, which inter alia
stipulates that every person having on the appointed date in his
possession, custody or control of any property forming part or relatable
to the College shall deliver forthwith such property to the Government
or to any Officer or other employee of the Government as may be
authorized by the Government in this behalf. He also relied upon Rules
3, 6 and 7 of The Delhi Tibbia College (Take Over) Rules, 2006 to
contend that the said Rules prescribe powers and duties of the Director
and also issuance of notification regarding the details of the property of
the College or relatable to the College and procedure for issuing
directions to hand over the properties of the College or relatable to the
College.
5. According to him, no such procedure was followed before taking
impugned action against the appellants. According to him, this position
under the Act and the Rules had been accepted by the learned Single
Judge, and the relief was granted in favour of the petitioners in W.P.(C)
No. 6797/2008, and not to the appellants herein. In this regard, he has
drawn our attention to paras 65 to 71 of the impugned order. It is his
submission that the said procedure need to have been followed in the
case of the appellants herein also.
6. Mr. Satyakam, who appears for the respondents, on advance
notice concede to the fact that the appellants herein are also entitled to
the benefit of the procedure under the Rules of 2006. In fact, he states
that the respondents shall give the benefit of the procedure under the
Rules of 2006 in the manner directed by the learned Single Judge that is
the respondents shall take appropriate action after following the
procedure as specified under the said Rules, to the appellants herein and
also to the petitioners, whose writ petitions have been dismissed but
have not filed appeals.
7. In view of the statement made by Mr. Satyakam, these two
appeals are allowed and the writ petitions are disposed of by setting
aside the impugned notice dated July 26, 2005 in W.P.(C) No.
12377/2005 and restraining the respondents from taking impugned
action against the appellants in both the appeals, by leaving it open to
the respondents to take appropriate action against the appellants after
following the procedure as specified under the Rules of 2006. We also
take on record, the submission made by Mr. Satyakam that such a
procedure shall also be followed by the respondents against similarly
placed petitioners, whose writ petitions have been dismissed but have
not approached this Court by way of appeals. The appeals are disposed
of.
CM No. 7018/2019 (for stay) in LPA 108/2019
CM No. 7031/2019 (for stay) in LPA 109/2019
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
FEBRUARY 15, 2019/ak
