Delhi High Court
Mrs Krishna vs Dav Public School & Ors. on 5 November, 2024
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela, Manmohan
$~40 & 41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 1095/2024, CM APPL. Nos. 64641-43/2024
M/S N.C. JAIN & SONS ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta and Mr. Lalit
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Himanshu Pathak, (SPC), Mr.
Vedansh Anand, (GP) and Mr. Amit
Singh, Advocate.
41
+ LPA 1096/2024, CM APPL. Nos. 64686-88/2024
M/S A.S. MANOJ AND CO. & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta and Mr. Lalit
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, SPC and Mr.
Gokul Sharma, GP.
% Date of Decision: 5th November, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, CJ (ORAL)
1. Present appeals have been preferred under Clause X of the Letters
Patent Act, 1866 assailing the impugned order dated 7th October, 2024
passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the underlying
writ petitions being W.P.(C) 12342/2024 and W.P.(C) 12467/2024 filed by
the appellants were dismissed and the appellants were directed to vacate the
subject stalls within a period of three (3) months.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants states that though the learned
Single Judge has granted an extension of three (3) months from the date of
expiry of non dies period, yet in view of the order passed by the Supreme
Court in SLP(C) No.23319/2024 dated 18th October 2024, an extension was
granted to the petitioners therein till 15th February, 2025 to vacate their
respective stalls. On this basis, learned counsel for the appellants requests
that a further benefit of extension for a period of four (4) months, in
addition to the extension of three (3) months as granted vide the impugned
order, be directed in favor of the appellants herein, on the ground of parity.
3. We note that the present appeals are similar to the appeal decided by
this Court on 9th August, 2024 being LPA No. 770/2024 "M/s Veer &
Company Graduate Partnership Concern & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors"
which was dismissed. It has been brought to this Court's notice that the said
order dated 9th August, 2024 was challenged by way of a Special Leave
Petition (for short 'SLP') being SLP(C) No. 19229/2024 "M/s S Veer &
Company Graduate Partnership Concern & Anr. vs. Union of India &
Ors.". The said SLP was disposed of allowing extension of four (4) months
on account of dies non period effective from the date of order subject to
filing of an undertaking within a period of four (4) weeks.
4. The order dated 27th August, 2024 passed in SLP(C) No. 19229/2024
"M/s S Veer & Company Graduate Partnership Concern & Anr. vs. Union
of India & Ors." is reproduced hereunder:-
"1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court. We however extend the time granted by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court in its order dated 29.05.2024 by
four months from today. All the allottees shall vacate and handover the
vacant possession of the stalls in question before the expiry of four months
subject to filing of the usual undertaking before the Registry of this Court
within four weeks from today.
3. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
5. In view of the aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court, this Court
has been consistently passing similar orders granting extension of four (4)
months with effect from 27th August 2024, in similar appeals.
6. The operative portion of the impugned order is extracted hereunder:-
"12. The petitions are, therefore, disposed of with direction that, subject to
payment of the license fee, the petitioners will be permitted to continue to
operate their stalls for a period of three months from the date of expiry of
the license, as extended by the respondents for the dies non period.
13. In the cases where the stalls have already been closed due to lapse
of the dies non period, but the period of three months thereafter has not yet
lapsed, the petitioners would be permitted to operate the stalls for the
balance of the three-month period..."
7. Considering the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned order, whereby the appellants have already been granted three (3)
months extension, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the directions
passed in the impugned order dated 7th October, 2024.
8. Since the three (3) months extension would enure to the benefit of the
appellants till January, 2025, we find no justification in extending the time
further. Accordingly, the appeals, along with the pending applications, are
dismissed.
MANMOHAN, CJ
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
NOVEMBER 5, 2024/rl
