Delhi High Court
Rajendra Prasad Sharma vs Union Public Service Commission & ... on 28 August, 2020
#2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Delivered On: 28.08.2020
LPA 227/2020
RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA .....Appellant
versus
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
& ORS. ......Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr. Tanveer Ahmed and Mr. Prateek Gupta,
Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for R-1
Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Abhishek
Sharma, Advocate for R-2
Mr. Manish Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr.
D.K. Devesh, Advocate for R-3
Mr. Mangal Sharma and Mr. Kartikey Bhatt,
Advocates for R-4 to 23
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. (Open Court-via Video Conferencing)
CM APPL.20772/2020 (Exemption)
Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
CM APPL.20773/2020 (Exemption)
The present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of the applicant/appellant
seeking exemption from filing duly attested affidavits in support of the
accompanying appeal, as well, as the application.
For the reasons stated in the application and in view of the
present prevailing situation, the same is allowed. The
applicant/appellant is allowed to file the duly signed and attested
affidavits within a period of one week from the date of resumption of
regular functioning of the Court.
With the above directions, the present application is disposed of.
LPA 227/2020 & CM APPL. 20771/2020 (Interim Directions)
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the
Letters Patent, inter alia, assails the order dated 21.08.2020, passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 3509/2020 titled as 'Shri Akul
Bhargava & Ors. vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors.'.
2. Mr. Tanveer Ahmad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, however, limits the relief in the present appeal to a direction
to the learned Single Judge to determine the maintainability of the
subject writ petition as well as the subject matter and territorial
jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the subject writ petition, as a
preliminary issue.
3. Issue notice.
4. Counsel, as above accept notice on behalf of the respondents.
5. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the parties, the appeal has been heard finally.
6. We observe that, inter alia, vide order dated 12.06.2020 in
paragraph 7 thereof, the learned Single Judge was pleased to observe
as follows:
"7. The Court has heard the submissions of the
parties, and has perused the records. The
first question that would have to be
determined by this Court is as to the
maintainability of the writ as also the
territorial jurisdiction."
7. In view of the foregoing and with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, including the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioners, the learned
Single Judge is requested to determine the maintainability of the
subject writ petition, as also the question, whether this Court has
subject matter and territorial jurisdiction in the present writ petition, as
a preliminary issue before proceeding further with the merits of the
subject writ petition.
8. No further directions are called for.
9. With the above direction, the present Letters Patent Appeal is
disposed of. The pending application stands disposed of.
10. A copy of this judgment be provided electronically to learned
counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and be uploaded on the
website of this Court forthwith.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
TALWANT SINGH
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 28, 2020
dn/as
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
