VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2013 › High Court of Delhi

Bses Yamuna Power Limited v. Narender Vaid

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
26 June 2013
Bench
Vibhu Bakhruauthor
Case no.
W.P.(C) 4048/2013

Follow Delhi High CourtFollow Vibhu Bakhru

Judgment

$-27

26.06.2013 Present: Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr K. Datta and Mr Manish Srivastava, Advocate. CM No. 9547/2013 (Exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(CV4048/2013 & CM 9546/2013

(Stay) The petitioneris a companyprovidingutility service in parts of Delhi. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 06.06.2013 passed by the peimanentLok Adalatseekingthe attendanceof the Head of the Department of Enforcement Cell. The petitioner has contended that it is represented before the Lok Adalat by duly authorised officers and in these circumstances, the direction for senior officers to attend in person are unwan-ante'd. This Court is inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that at this stage,summoningseniorofficersmay not be appositeand conduciveto the conciliatoryefforts being undertakenby parties before the Lok Adalat. Accordingly,the impugnedorder is modifiedto the extentthat the Head of the Departmentis not requiredto attend the proceedings. However, I am assuredby the petitionerthat the directionsfor for filing writtenresponseas made by the Lok Adalat would be strictlyfollowed and a duly authorised officerwouldbe presentfor an effectivedisposalof the matter. The written response as directedwill be filed within one week from today. Since the matter is listed tomonw, it would be appropriate if a request for adjournmentis made on behalfof the petitionerwhich is needless to say would be considered favourablyby the Lok Adalat. Accordinglythis writ Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. if-petition stands disposed of. I am conscious of the fact that this writ petition is being disposed of without issuance notice to the respondent. However, this Court does not deem it fit to issue notice as it would unnecessarily delay the proceedings before the Lok Adalat and also needless burden the respondent as the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the conduct of the proceedings and no relief against the respondent is prayed for. Dasti under the signatures of Court Master. (VIBHU BAKHRU) VACATION JUDGE JUNE 26, 2013 rk

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.