Delhi High Court
Anil Aggarwal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 7 July, 2022
$~16
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 07.07.2022
+ W.P(C) 10267/2022 & CM APPL. 29626-27/2022
ANIL AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Jha & Vikash K.Singh Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 07.03.2022 whereby the
application of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the
original application before the Tribunal has been dismissed.
2. Petitioner in the original application sought to impugn the
enquiry report dated 23.03.2006 as well as the major penalty imposed
on 13.04.2006 as well as the order dated 27.08.2007 passed by the
Appellate Authority.
3. As per the petitioner, petitioner was issued a chargesheet dated
13.02.2006. Petitioner contends that prior to issuance of the
chargesheet the enquiry officer had already been appointed and no
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:09.07.2022 09:35:28
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
opportunity given to the petitioner to respond to the allegations of
charge before the enquiry officer was appointed.
4. Petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of the original
application on 09.02.2022 with a delay of 4899 days.
5. In the subject application seeking condonation of delay, the
ground taken by the petitioner was that petitioner was not aware of the
infraction in the enquiry proceedings i.e. violation of Fundamental
Rule 56J and became aware only when an query was made under the
Right to Information Act and a response thereto received in August,
2021.
6. The Tribunal has held that the limitation for filing an O.A is one
year from the date of accrual of cause of action. The subject original
application was filed with a delay of 4899 days way beyond the
stipulated statutory period.
7. The petitioner seeks to impugn the enquiry report dated
23.03.2006, order of major penalty dated 13.04.2006 which admittedly
the petitioner received in 2006 itself and that is why the petitioner
filed an appeal before the appellate authority which was rejected by
the order impugned dated 27.08.2007.
8. The cause of action to impugn the said orders would accrue
when the orders are brought to the notice of the petitioner which in the
present case was in the year 2006 and 2007 respectively. The
allegation that petitioner was not aware of the infraction in the enquiry
proceedings till 2021 would not give rise to fresh cause of action to
the petitioner to impugn the said orders which were duly served on the
petitioner in 2006 and 2007.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:09.07.2022 09:35:28
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
9. We are of the view that no error has been committed by the
Tribunal in holding that the original application filed by the petitioner
is way beyond the statutory period of limitation and there is
insufficient explanation for condoning the delay in filing the original
application. In that view of the above, there is no infirmity in the
impugned order rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay
and consequently dismissing the original application on the ground of
limitation.
10. We find no merit in this petition. The petition is accordingly
dismissed. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor
commented upon the merits of contentions of either parties.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
JULY 7, 2022/rk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:09.07.2022 09:35:28
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
