W.P.(C)/6046/2024 of GHAMMI Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 6046/2024 & CM APPL. 25051/2024 -Ex.GHAMMI..... PetitionerGHAMMI..... Petitioner

..... Petitioner

Through:Mr. Anil Mittal, Mr. Shaurya Mittal,Mr. Atul Chauhan, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR..... Respondent

Through:Mr. Sushil Raaja, SPC, Mr. AakashPathak, GP. for UOI/R-1.Ms. Gauraan, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLIHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEEO R R30.04.2024

1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of theConstitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 19.02.2024 passedby the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) in M.A.No. 111/2023 as also in O.A. No. 105/2023. Vide the impugned order,the learned Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner’s application beingM.A. No. 111/2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the O.A.after noting that, despite opportunity, learned counsel for the applicantwas not willing to argue the application.Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 19.02.2024 passedby the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) in M.A.No. 111/2023 as also in O.A. No. 105/2023. Vide the impugned order,the learned Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner’s application beingM.A. No. 111/2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the O.A.after noting that, despite opportunity, learned counsel for the applicantwas not willing to argue the application.

2. The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, whenthe matter was taken up for consideration by the learned Tribunal, thethe matter was taken up for consideration by the learned Tribunal, the

arguing counsel was held up before the Apex Court and, therefore, arequest for adjournment was made by the proxy counsel, whichrequest was not acceded to. The learned Tribunal, he contends oughtto have granted short accommodation to the learned counsel for thepetitioner in these circumstances.

3. Issue notice. Ms. Gauraan, learned counsel for the respondent no.2accepts notice and supports the impugned order by urging that thelearned Tribunal, having granted repeated opportunities to the learnedcounsel for the petitioner to make submissions, could not be faultedfor rejecting the M.A. for condonation of delay and, consequently,dismissing the O.A. on account of failure of the petitioner’s counsel tomake submissions. She, therefore, prays that the writ petition bedismissed.accepts notice and supports the impugned order by urging that thelearned Tribunal, having granted repeated opportunities to the learnedcounsel for the petitioner to make submissions, could not be faultedfor rejecting the M.A. for condonation of delay and, consequently,dismissing the O.A. on account of failure of the petitioner’s counsel tomake submissions. She, therefore, prays that the writ petition bedismissed.

4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for theparties and perused the record, we are of the view that even thoughthe learned Tribunal cannot really be faulted for dismissing the M.A.when the proxy counsel, who was present in Court refused to arguethe matter and instead sought an adjournment on account of non-availability of the main counsel, short accommodation could havebeen granted by the learned Tribunal. Having said so, we are of theview that though the impugned order deserves to be set aside, thesame ought to be subject to payment of costs.parties and perused the record, we are of the view that even thoughthe learned Tribunal cannot really be faulted for dismissing the M.A.when the proxy counsel, who was present in Court refused to arguethe matter and instead sought an adjournment on account of non-availability of the main counsel, short accommodation could havebeen granted by the learned Tribunal. Having said so, we are of theview that though the impugned order deserves to be set aside, thesame ought to be subject to payment of costs.5. We, therefore, allow the petition by setting aside the impugned orderandremandingthematterback tothelearnedTribunalforadjudication of the M.A. as also the O.A. on merits. The same would,however, be subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- payable toandremandingthematterback tothelearnedTribunalforadjudication of the M.A. as also the O.A. on merits. The same would,however, be subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to

Ms. Gauraan, (Mobile No. [REDACTED]) learned counsel for therespondent no.2. Costs be paid within two weeks.respondent no.2. Costs be paid within two weeks.

6. List the O.A. alongwith the M.A. before the learned Tribunal on16.05.2024 for further proceedings.16.05.2024 for further proceedings.

REKHA PALLI, J

APRIL 30, 2024/al

SAURABH BANERJEE, J