14$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10386/2009 & CM No.9021/2009 (for stay)
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Adv.
Versus
CENTRAL INFORMATION
COMMISSION & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 01.08.2011
1. None appears for the respondent No.2. He is proceeded against ex
parte.
2. The challenge in the petition is to the order dated 11 th February, 2009
of the respondent No.1 Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the
petitioner to consider the case of the respondent No.2 Sh. Babulal Paswan
for re-engagement after giving him an opportunity of hearing and further
directing the petitioner to trace out the file relating to the service matter of
the respondent No.2 and if the same is traced out, to allow inspection
thereof to the respondent No.2.
3. Notice of the petition was issued only qua the direction to the
petitioner to consider the case of the respondent No.2 and vide order dated
24th July, 2009 which continues to be in force, the implementation of the
said part of the order stayed.
1/2
4. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the said
direction is beyond the powers and jurisdiction of the CIC. It is further
stated that the respondent No.2 had also preferred a writ petition being
W.P.(C) No.4247/1993 in the High Court of Patna seeking mandamus to the
petitioner herein to absorb him in its service and which writ petition was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 8th April, 1994 observing that
disputed questions of fact were involved and the remedy of the respondent
No.2 was to raise an industrial dispute.
5. Though the respondent No.2 has filed counter affidavit but has not
been able to controvert the aforesaid.
6. The direction of the CIC to the petitioner to consider the case of the
appellant for re-engagement is undoubtedly beyond the powers and
jurisdiction of the CIC and has to be necessarily set aside.
7. The petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 11 th February,
2009 of the CIC directing the petitioner to consider the case of the
respondent No.2 for re-engagement is set aside / quashed.
No order as to cost.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
AUGUST 01, 2011
‘gsr’
2/2