Delhi High Court
Ritesh Tanwar & Ors. vs Delhi Cantonment Board Through ... on 17 August, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 17th AUGUST, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ LPA 207/2022 & CM APPLs. 13505-06/2022, 13651/2022
RITESH TANWAR & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sanjay Mishra, Mr. Rajiv
Tripathi, Ms. Stuti Mishra, Mr. Sunil
Tiwari, Advocates
versus
DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD THROUGH ITS CEO & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Mr. T. S.
Nanda, Mr. Ankur Mishra, Advocates
for R-1
Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, Mr.
Soumitra Chaterjee, Advocates for
R-2
Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with
Mr. Danish Faraz Khan, Mr. Vishal
Chanda, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
1. The present LPA arises out of an Order dated 15.11.2021 passed by
the learned Single Judge in Ritesh Tanwar & Ors. v. Delhi Cantonment
Board Through Its CEO & Ors., W.P. (C) 12833/2021.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:22.08.2022
17:25:44
2. The facts of the case reveal that Appellant No.1 and 2 are individuals,
and Petitioner No.3 is an Association of Contractors. The writ petition was
preferred by the Appellants herein for issuance of an appropriate writ, order
or direction restraining Respondent No.2 from holding any public post
alleging that Respondent No.2 does not hold the requisite qualification for
the post of Assistant Engineer and he is a backdoor entrant.
3. Learned Single Judge vide Order dated 15.11.2021, had dismissed the
said writ petition. Paragraphs 2 to 9 of the Order passed by the learned
Single Judge reads as under:-
"2. Apparently, the prayers (a) and (b) are with
regard to the appointment of the respondent No.2 as an
Assistant Engineer in respondent No.1 organisation.
The prayer (c) is not related to the appointment of the
respondent No.2 in the respondent No.1 organisation.
3. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate, appears for
respondent No.1, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate,
appears for respondent No.2 and Mr. Anurag
Ahluwalia, CGSC, appears for respondent Nos.3 and
4. It is conceded case of the counsel for the petitioner
that neither the petitioner No.1 nor the petitioner No.2
are employees of the respondent No.1 organisation.
Rather they are private persons. The petitioner No.3 is
an association of contractors based in the Delhi
Cantonment area. The grievance of the petitioners in
this petition appears to be the appointment of the
respondent No.3 as Assistant Engineer in the
respondent No.1 organisation in the year 1996.
5. Though, many pleas have been advanced by the
counsel for the petitioner, one of the pleas is that the
appointment is not accordance with the rules. This
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:22.08.2022
17:25:44
stand is contested by Mrs. Ahlawat, Mr. Kaushik as
well as Mr. Ahluwalia.
6. Suffice to state that that the petitioner challenges the
appointment of the petitioner which happened in the
year 1996 i.e. 25 years back. Apparently such a
challenge, without going into the locus of the
petitioners, is hit by delay and laches and is also a
stale claim. The plea of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the petitioners have come to know
about the appointment only in the year 2016-17 which
resulted in a representation made in the year 2017.
Merely because the petitioners have come to know
about the appointment in 2016-17 and made
representation in the year 2017 would not revive the
cause of action if any for the petitioners to challenge
the appointment made in 1996.
7. Suffice to state, the prayers (a) and (b) cannot be
granted. The petition qua them is rejected. In so far as
prayer (c) is concerned, as this prayer does not relate
to the appointment of respondent No.2 and as such not
a service matter, I say nothing.
8. The petitioners are at liberty to seek remedy as
available in law with regard to prayer (c).
9. The petition is dismissed."
4. The order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals that the
appointment of Respondent No.2 was made in the year 1996 and it was only
after about 25 years of the appointment of Respondent No.2 that the writ
petition has been preferred.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Delhi Cantonment Board has stated
before this Court that Appellant Nos.1 and 2 have filed this appeal with an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:22.08.2022
17:25:44
oblique and ulterior motive as their property was sealed in the presence of
Respondent No.2 as it was an unauthorized construction. Learned counsel
for the Appellants has admitted in Court that their property was sealed on
the allegation that it is an unauthorized construction.
6. Learned counsel for the Delhi Cantonment Board states that as many
as 288 applications were preferred by the Appellant No.1 and 2 under the
Right to Information Act, 2005. It is also submitted that as many as 83
complaints have been filed against Respondent No.2 by the Appellants and
they have all been looked into by the authorities. Similarly, the complaint
preferred by the Appellants was also looked into by the Principal Director,
(Directorate of Defence Estates), Western Command, wherein it has been
held that there was no irregularity in appointment of Respondent No.2.
7. Learned Counsel for the Appellants also does not dispute the order
passed by the Principal Director (Directorate of Defence Estates), Western
Command.
8. The learned counsel for the Appellants further contends before this
Court that there is lot of corruption in the Delhi Cantonment Board. He has
stated that the tenders of the Appellants were rejected without any reasons
and there are violations of the rules while granting tenders to certain
persons. However, this is not the subject matter of the instant appeal.
9. In light of the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that this
appeal is nothing but an attempt made by the Appellants to blackmail the
Delhi Cantonment Board. In case there is corruption in the Delhi
Cantonment Board, a mechanism has been provided under various
provisions of law and the Appellants are certainly at liberty to avail the
remedies in accordance with law. Merely by making bald allegations, this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:22.08.2022
17:25:44
Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry into the allegations made by the
Appellants. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case.
10. The LPA is dismissed with the above observations. Pending
applications stand disposed of.
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
AUGUST 17, 2022
hsk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:22.08.2022
17:25:44
