VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2016 › High Court of Delhi

Kunal Chauhan v. National Commission for Women & Anr

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
31 March 2016
Bench
Rajiv Sahai Endlawauthor
Case no.
W.P.(C) 7359/2014

Judgment

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. MARCH 31, 2016 "bs"..

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 31st March, 2016. + W.P.(C) No. 7359/2014 & CM No.17214/2014 (for stay) KUNAL CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, Adv. Versus NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR WOMEN & ANR .......Respondents Through: Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC and Ms. Astha Sharma, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Aditya Dewan, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks mandamus to the respondent No.1 National Commission for Women (NCW) to recall its advisory dated 14th June, 2013 and seeks compensation in the sum of Rs.75,49,958/- jointly and severally from the respondent No.1 NCW and respondent No.2 Ms. Devika Singh. 2. The petition was filed pleading: (i) that the respondent No.2 Ms. Devika Singh is the wife of the petitioner; (ii) that the petitioner is a Marine Engineer and was, at the time of his marriage and thereafter employed with Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Maritime (Indian) Pvt. Ltd.; (iii) that disputes and differences arose between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 Ms. Devika Singh and the respondent No.2 Ms. Devika Singh filed a complaint against the petitioner with the Special Unit of Women and Child of Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell of Delhi Police which issued notice to the petitioner; (iv) that the respondent No.2 Ms. Devika Singh also filed a petition in the District Court at Saket, New Delhi against the petitioner under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; (v) that the respondent No.2 Ms. Devika Singh using her clout as a Consultant to the National Mission for Empowerment of Women under the Ministry of Women and Child Development filed a complaint with the respondent No.1 NCW and the respondent No.1 NCW ignoring the fact that the CAW Cell of Delhi Police and the District Court at Saket were seized of the disputes between the parties and further ignoring the fact that all the properties of the petitioner are in India and without complying with the principles of natural justice and giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, issued the impugned advisory dated 14th June, 2013 to the High Commission of India in Singapore, directing them to advise the employer of the petitioner not to post the petitioner outside India and with a copy to the employer of the petitioner; (vi) that as a direct consequence of the aforesaid advisory, the petitioner"s employer aforesaid discontinued the services of the petitioner vide their email dated 24th June, 2013, making the petitioner unemployed; (vii) that though the petitioner represented to the respondent No.1 NCW to withdraw their advisory but to no avail; (viii) that finally the respondent No.1 NCW in response to information sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) furnished to the petitioner the complaint made by the respondent No.2 Ms. Devika Singh and whereupon the advisory aforesaid had been issued; (ix) that the District Court, Saket and the CAW Cell of Delhi Police have concluded that the respondent No.2 Ms. Devika Singh had taken forcible possession of the petitioner"s property in Noida, U.P.; (x) that owing to the illegal acts of the respondents, the petitioner has suffered loss. 3. The petition came up before this Court first on 31st October, 2014, when while issuing notice thereof, it was prima facie observed that the action of the respondent No.1 NCW of communicating directly with the employer of the petitioner was an abuse of authority by the respondent No.1 NCW and respondent No.1 NCW directed to consider withdrawing the letter dated 14th June, 2013. 4. However, notwithstanding the aforesaid opportunity, the respondent No.1 NCW did not withdraw the said advisory; this Court vide order dated 4th December, 2014, expressing a prima facie opinion that the authority of the respondent No.1 NCW extended only to taking up matters with the appropriate authorities in accordance with law and that the respondent No.1

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.