24
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6202/2010, CM No.12269/2010 (for direction) & CM
No.14509/2010 (for directions)
AKHILESH DAS GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.P. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Alok Saran, & Mr. Manoj Saxena,
Advocates.
Versus
UOI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sachin Datta & Ms. Gayatri
Verma, Advocates for R-1 UOI.
Ms. Mrinalini Sen Gupta, Advocate
for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 11.07.2011
1. The petitioner, in the year 2003 being a member of Rajya Sabha, was
on the recommendation of the respondent no.1 granted tenure membership
of the respondent no.2 Delhi Golf Club Ltd. This writ petition has been filed
impugning the order dated 6th October, 2009 of the respondent no.1 directing
the respondent no.2 Club to delete the name of the petitioner as a member,
owing to the petitioner having ceased to be a Member of the Rajya
W.P.(C) 6202/2010 Page 1 of 4
Sabha. The contention the of petitioner was/is that as on 6 th October, 2009
he was still a member of Rajya Sabha and the order dated 6 th October, 2009
had been made under the mistaken belief that the petitioner was not a
Member of Parliament.
2. Notice of the writ petition was issued and on the statement of the
petitioner that there existed three vacancies for tenure membership, vide
order dated 14th September, 2010 it was directed that one such vacancy be
kept unfilled awaiting the decision of the writ petition. The said interim
order continues till date.
3. The respondent no.1 has filed counter affidavit stating that the tenure
membership granted to the petitioner in the year 2003 was till the time he
continued to be a member of Parliament; that the petitioner resigned from
the post of Member Parliament (Rajya Sabha) on 8th May, 2008 but failed to
surrender his tenure membership and continued to enjoy the membership of
the respondent no.2 Club; that though the petitioner was re-elected in
November, 2008 but he was required to apply again for tenure membership
and which he failed to do; that the petitioner upon re-election to the Rajya
Sabha could not continue the tenure membership earlier granted to him; that
W.P.(C) 6202/2010 Page 2 of 4
upon the petitioner being re-elected, his name would be considered as per
the seniority in the applicants therefor.
4. The petitioner in his rejoinder has not controverted the factum of his
resignation and re-election.
5. The respondent no.1 in its counter affidavit has also explained that the
name of the petitioner at the time of applying for membership in 2003 was
disclosed as Dr. Akhilesh Das. The petitioner upon re-election was calling
himself Dr. Akhilesh Das Gupta and this inconsistency, resulted in the
reason as given in the order dated 6th October, 2009. The respondent no.2
Club has also in its affidavit filed in pursuance to the directions has
disclosed that the name of the petitioner entered was as Dr. Akhilesh Das
and he has ceased to be a member with effect from 6 th October, 2009.
6. The senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner
upon re-election has again applied for tenure membership of the respondent
no.2 Club and the name of the petitioner be considered against any vacancy
for tenure membership. It is contended that since one vacancy has already
been reserved as per orders in this writ petition, the name of the petitioner be
considered as per seniority against the same.
W.P.(C) 6202/2010 Page 3 of 4
7. The counsel for the respondent no.1 has contended that the petitioner
having not succeeded in the writ petition cannot have any benefit of the
interim order obtained therein and has assured that the name of the petitioner
will remain on the list of applicants for tenure membership and shall be
considered as and when vacancy occurs therein as per seniority.
8. There is merit in the contention of the counsel for the respondent no.1.
With the disposal of the writ petition, the interim order shall disappear and
no advantage can be taken thereof.
9. The writ petition is therefore dismissed recording that the application
made by the petitioner upon his re-election, for tenure membership of the
respondent no.2 Club shall be considered by the respondent no.1 as per its
Rules.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
JULY 11, 2011
bs..
W.P.(C) 6202/2010 Page 4 of 4