Vipin Kumar Mittal and Anr v. UOI and Anr

.r)-\ 4J s-27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI w.P.(c) 82stit20rr VIPIN KUMARMITTAL AND ANR. UOI AND ANR. Through: ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate VETSUS Mr. Sushl r,,-ur, H'fi:lffff"g counsel for R-I/UOI -\. t .4' CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR OBDER oh

23.11.20t1 CM No. 18572/2011 Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) No. 8250/2011

¶1The mandamus sought to the respondent No.IAJOI is to forthwith regularize the allotment of GNCTD quarter No. 1209, Type-II, Delhi Administration Flats, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi, in the narre of l't petitioner - Mr.Vipin Kumar Mittal. Another relief sought in this petition is to put on hold the eviction proceedings sought to be initiated against the petitioner No.2 - Sh. Mool Chand Mittal, who is in occupation of the aforesaid premises of respondent No.2/GNCTD even after retirement and in this W.P.(C) No.B250/2011 Page 1 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. :J r'- regard, Show Cause Notice of 24lItil20II (Annexure P-16) has been issued to the petitioner No.2.

¶2Learned counsel for petilioners states that when petitioners request for regularization of the aforesaid allotment is pending before the respondent No.1, then the issuanqe of the impugned Show Cause Notice upon petitioner No.2 is bad in law.

¶3Petitioners clairn that Representatiqn (Annexure P-14), seeking regularizatiqn of the aforesaid flat, was made to respondent No.I/UOI and the same has not been responded to. Learned counsel for petitioners strongly reliqs upon the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 818/1996, titled as 'Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs. The Secretary, Land & Building Department & Ors.', rendered on20.02.1998, wherein directions issued were to consider inter-pool exchange of government accomrnodation and it is stated that in pursuance to the said order, the inter-pool exchange was permitted by respondent No.2 on 12.07.1999.

¶4Upon Notice, learned counsel for respondent No.l states that petitioners' similar request for regularization of the accommodation in question has been turned down vide communication of 25126.06.2007 by observing that the premises in question is not under the administrative control of respondent No.1.

¶5To controvert the aforesaid assertion, learned counsel for petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the earlier Representation made by the petitioners wherein inter-pool exchange of governrnent accommodation .+ "1t W.P.(C) No.B250/2011 Page2 at policy was not gpecifically referred to, as has been referred to in this Representation (Annexure P-14). It is also pointed out that respondent No.2 has 'Np Objeqtion' to the aforesaid regularization of the allotment if an equal aQcommodatiqn is placed at the disposal of Delhi Government by respondent No.l and this is so evident from the communication of

22.09.2008 (Annexure P-8).

¶6Be that as it may. Withqut touching on the merits of the issue raised in this petition, it is deemed appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to decide petitioners' Representation (Annexure P-14) expeditiously, i.e. preferably within a period of 4 weeks, after hearing petitioner No.1 and the fate of the Representation be communicated to petitioner No.l within 2 weeks thereafter.

¶7So far as the quashing of Show Cause Notice of 24.10.2011 is conqemed, I find that the prayer made in this respect is premature because petitioner No.2 is always at liberty to respond to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice and to explain the factual position before the authorities concetned. For this pu{pose, petitioners shall make a response to respondent No.2 within 4 weeks. However, it is made clear that before the eviction proceedings against petitioner No.2 are finalized, the fate of the Representation (Annexure P-14) be taken into consideration by the Estate Officer concerned.

¶8With observations as aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of, with no orders as to costs. if.. W.P. (C) N o.B2 50/2 01-1-Page 3 +

¶9Copy of this order be given dastt to counsel representing both sides. CMNo. 18571/2011(g/S 151 CPC) Dismissed as infructuous. NOVEMBER 23,2OII rS f{ F., NIL GAUR) W.P.(C) No.B25rti/2011 ,l i,( Page4