Delhi High Court
Deputy Secretary (Committees) vs Rajdut Gehlot on 28 January, 2021
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 41/2021
Date of Decision: 28thJanuary, 2021
DEPUTY SECRETARY (COMMITTEES) ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Gautam Narayan, Advocate
versus
RAJDUT GEHLOT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGMENT
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
CM APPL. 2924/2021(Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
LPA 41/2021 & CM APPL. 2922 (Stay)& 2923/2021(Permission to file a
lengthy List of Dates)
1. Feeling dissatisfied by an interim order of the learned Single Judge
dated 23rd December, 2020 in W.P.(C) 10927/2020, original respondent
No.1 has preferred the present appeal.
2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant (original
respondent No.1) submits that the learned Single Judge should not have
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ
KUMAR
Location:
Signing Date:06.02.2021
12:07:27
interfered with the notice issued by the Committee seeking information /
data from the South Delhi Municipal Corporation. Learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant while placing reliance on Article 208(1) of the
Constitution of India and Rule 160 of "Rules of Procedure and Conduct of
Business in the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of
Delhi, 2013" (appended at page no.105 of thispetition) submits that learned
Single Judge has no power, jurisdiction and authority to interfere with the
notice calling for information by the Committee in question apart from the
fact that the petitioner had no locus standi to even file the said petition.
Thus, according to the appellant the learned Single Judge should not have
stayed the operation of the impugned notice dated 04.12.2020 in the writ
petition.
2. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/original
respondent no.1, we are of the view that the contentions raised in the present
appeal are open to be raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge
and needless to state if and when raised, shall be decided by the learned
Single Judge in accordance with law and keeping in view the facts of the
case.
3. It also needs to be highlighted that one of the substantive prayers in
the writ petition is a challenge to the notice dated 04.12.2020 and in case
this Court interferes with the impugned order, it would amount to deciding
the writ petition in part, while the same is still pending for adjudication. The
impugned notice dated 4th December, 2020, which is at Annexure P-1 to the
memo of the writ petition, has been stayed onlytill the next date of
hearingi.e. 9th February, 2021 and it is open to the appellant herein to seek
hearing of the petition on the said date.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ
KUMAR
Location:
Signing Date:06.02.2021
12:07:27
4. Looking at the nature of relief sought, we request the learned Single
Judge to expedite the hearing of W.P.(C) 10927/2020 and the counsels for
the parties have assured that they shall not seek unnecessary adjournment so
that the matter can be heard on the next date of hearing.
5. With these observations, the appeal is hereby disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JYOTI SINGH, J
JANUARY 28, 2021
rd
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PANKAJ
KUMAR
Location:
Signing Date:06.02.2021
12:07:27
