SURENDRA PRATAP SINGH AND ORS v. INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD AND ORS

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CIIIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA ORDER 03.0s.2011 It is subrnitted by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that though two significant contentions were raised before the Tribunal, yet the same have not been appropriately adverted to in their contours. The first contention as put. forth by Mr. Singh is that the Office Memorandum dated 9'r' Muy, 2000 though applicable has not been appositely applied by the Tribunal inasmuch as the respondept coriroration was not a sick/unviable company and, therefore, there was no question of rolling back of the age of superannuation. The second contention 't.g canvassed by \4r. Singh is that even if the rolling back principle 4@ attracted there has to be a conscious decision by the Board of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA l' t r

1. corporation, but the corporation had not taken a decision in an apposite manner inasmuch as there had been forgery while passing the resolution and the said fact was pleaded in the original application. In view of the aforesaid submissions, as advised at present, we would like to grant liberty to the petitioner to file an application for review. The Tribunal shall be well advised to deal with the application for :rl review as per law. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. The application for review shall be dealt with on merits and should not be thrown over board on the ground of limitation, if the same is filed within a period of three weeks from today. /ft"-'-tt CHIEF JUSTICE t MAY 03,20L1, NA / --/ -// .tt I -'((' I ( -. SANJIV KI{ANNA, J. - Reui..^t l.-fh,"eMo- 27>f >ory ( vol, rv P^F 6 s>) wtuQtruww,y"r? '(ki;i&") , W LvYTlh> (@d^tu('ff A ' I nA'1 $-+ * + 1 IN THE nicn couRT oF DELHr AT NEw DELHr w.P.(c) 289r/201r SURENDRA PRATAP SINGH AND oRS ..... petitioners Through Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. versus INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD AND ORS ..... Respondents Through lrztr. Ujjwal K. Jha, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, Central Govt. Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHAi\NA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA "/o ORDER 12.07.2013 CM No.6247l2013 (delav in re-filine the application), in Rev. pet. No.272/2013 The Rev. Pet. 272/2013 was filed on 02.01 .2013 after orcler dated 06.11 .2012 was passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter objections were raised and these were removed and finally the application was re-filed on 14.05.2013. There is substantial delay of 173 days in re- filling. The said delay is condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. The said costs will be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, within 15 days. The application is disposed of. CM No.6246l2013 (condonati_on of delav) in Rev. pet. No.272l2013

1. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we feel that the Rev. Pet. No. 27212013 is not in nature of the review but an application for i1 a i '1 clarification. 2. writ Petition (c) No.2B9L/20r1 was disposed of vide order dated 03.05.20L1 giving permission to the. applicant to file.an application for review before the Tribunal and it was observed that the application could not be thrown over board on the ground of limitation, if the same was filed within three weeks from the said date. 3, ' The applicant thereupon did file T application for review on 24.05.2011 i.e. within a period of three weeks but the same was " returned under office objections. The applicant did not take required and immediate steps to remove objections and re-file of the same till 02.04.2012. 4. As there w.as a delay, the applicant had also filed an application seeking condonation of delay in refilling the rel,iew application. Vide . order dated 06.11.2012, the review application was allowed to be withdrawn by the Tribunal observing:- ' , . "This is RA 40/ZOIZ with MA 367/2012 and MA 36812012 in the TA 985/009. After arguing at some length, Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, seeks to withdraw the RA for appropriate directions bV the Hon'ble High court as regards to stipulation of three weeks time granted vide its order dated May 3'0, Z0ll. Accordingly, the RA as well as MAs are disposed as withdrawn."

5. Now the applicant has filed the present application. 6. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clear that flre 'order dated 03.05.2011 had permitted the applicant to file an application for review before the Tribunal and it was observed that -r4 j Yl . Jr;\ -'r) *, 1 the same would not be rejected on the ground of limitation if the application for review was filed within a period of three weeks. Review application it appears was filed within a period of three weeks but it was returned under office objections. There was delay in removing the office objections and re-filing the review application. Whether or not any delay beyond three weeks should be condoned has to be dealt with and examined by the Tribunal on merits. Our order dated 03.05.2011, explicitly or impliedly, did nor bar any application for condonation of delay beyond three weeks or for delay in re-filing. 7. In these circumstances, we direct that the application for review (Rev. Pet. No.40 12012) will be treated as restored to its original number and position. The applicant will file an application for condonation oidelay in re-filing the said review application. The said application for condonation of delay will be examined by the Tribunal on merits after hearing counsel for the parties. In case delay is condoned, the review application will be examined on merits. 8. The application is disposed of. 9. We further clarify that in case the costs of Rs.5000/- are not paid, the Tribunal will dismiss the review application and the application for condonation of delay. r a i- It l--r n JIILY 12,20131st ,-/ /U tl ( L-'lt SANJIV KHfI\INA, J - orr,t --$eo -Or SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J