DEPUTY SECRETARY (COMMITTEES)  Vs RAJDUT GEHLOT

LPA 41/2021 Page 1 o f 3
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 41/2021
Date of Decision: 28thJanuary, 2021

DEPUTY SECRETARY (COMMITTEES) ….. Appellant
Through : Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gautam Narayan, Advocate

versus
RAJDUT GEHLOT ….. Respondent
Through : Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate

CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGMENT

D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)

CM APPL. 2924/2021 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
1. Feeling dissatisfied by an interim order of the learned Single Judge
dated 23rd December, 2020 in W.P.(C) 10927/2020, original respondent
No.1 has preferred the present appeal. LPA 41/2021 & CM APPL. 2922 (Stay) & 2923/2021 (Permission to file a
lengthy List of D ates)
2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant (original
responde nt No.1) submits tha t the learned Single Judge should not have
2021:DHC:329-DB
LPA 41/2021 Page 2 o f 3
interfered with the notice issued by the Committee seeking information /
data from the South Delhi Municipal Corporation. L earned Senior Counsel
appearing f or the appellant while p lacing reliance on Artic le 208 (1) of the
Constitution of India and Rule 160 of “ Rules of Procedure and Conduct of
Business in the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2013 ” (appended at page no.105 of thispetition) submits that learned
Single Judge has no power, jurisdiction and authority to interfere with the
notic e calling for information by the Committee in question apart from the
fact that the petitioner had no locus standi to even file the said petition .
Thus, according to the appe llant the learned Single Judge should not have
stayed the operation of the impugned notice dated 04.12.2020 in the writ
petition.
2. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant /orig inal
respondent no.1, we are of the view that the co ntentions raised in the present
appeal are open to be raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge and needless to state if and when raised, shall be decided by the learned
Single Judge in accordance with law and keeping in view the facts of the
case.
3. It also needs to be highlighted that one of the substantive prayers in
the writ petition is a challenge to the notice dated 04.12.2020 and in case this Court interferes with the impugned order, it would amount to deciding the writ petition in part , while the same is still pending for adjudication. The
impugned notice dated 4
th December, 2020, which is at Annexure P -1 to the
memo of the writ petition, has been stayed onlytill the next date of
hearing i.e. 9th February, 2021 and it is open to the appe llant herein to seek
hearing of the petition on the said date .
2021:DHC:329-DB
LPA 41/2021 Page 3 o f 3
4. Looking at the nature of relief sought, w e request the learned Single
Judge to expedite the hearing of W.P.(C) 10927/2020 and the counsels for
the parties have assured that they shall not seek unnecessary adjournment so
that the matter can be heard on the next date of hearing.
5. With these observations, the appeal is hereby disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JYOTI SINGH, J
JANUARY 28, 2021
rd

2021:DHC:329-DB