/ $54-55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . + LA.APP. 794/2011 UNION OF INDIA Through: versus ASHU GUPTA & ANR Through: + LA.APP. 795/2011 UNION OF INDIA Through Appellant Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms.K.Kaomudi Kiran, and Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, Advocates for UOI/LAC Respondents Mr.Arun Birbal and Mr.Paramhans, Advocates for DDA in (A-60 Mr.S.K.Sethi, Advocate for DDA (in A-17, 25 5 27 5 28, 29, 31 5 43, 53, 54, 59,61,62,64,65 5 66 Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA (in A-S to 13, 18 to 24, 26, 30, 32-42, 44-52, 55-58 5 60 5 63, 67-74 Appellant Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Kurnar Pathak, Ms.K.Kaomudi Kiran, and Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, Advocates for UOI/LAC versus ASHA AGARWAL & ANR Through: Respondents Mr.Arun Birbal and Mr.Paramhans, Advocates for DDA in (A-60 Mr.S.K.Sethi, Advocate for DDA (in A-17, 25 ) 27, 28, 29, 31 1 43, 53, 54, 59,61,62 ) 64 1 65,66 Mr.Kunal Sharma, Advocate for DDA (in A-S to 13, 18 to 24, 26, 30, 32-42 5 44-52 1 55-58 ) 60, 63, 67-74 LA.App. No. 794/2011 & LA.App. No. 795/2011 Page 1 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER % 21.12.2011 CMNo. 23172/11 inLA.APP. 794/2011 CMNo. 23175/11 inLA.APP. 795/2011 The reason for the delay put forth for delay in re-filing the appeals is contained in paragraph no.4 of these applications. Learned senior counsel for the applicant/appellant holds himself responsible • for the delay occasioned. In view of the averments made in paragraph no. 4 of the instant applications, the same are allowed and the delay in re-filing the accompanying appeals is condoned. C.Ms. stand disposed of. CM No. 23171/11 inLA.APP. 794/2011 CM No. 23 174/11 inLA.APP. 795/2011 Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant states that there is • no delay in filing the accompanying appeal, and the same be disposed of as infructuous. It is ordered accordingly. CMs stand disposed of. LA.APP. 794/2011 & CM No. 23 170/11 LA.APP. 795/2011 & CM No. 23173/11 After having heard learned senior counsel for the applicant/appellant at some length on merits also, I find that the appellant does not have an arguable case in view of a recent decision of the coordinate bench of this Court in LA.App. No. 358/2007 titled LA.App. No. 794/2011 & LA.App. No. 795/2011 Page 2 as 'Hem Chander Malik vs. Union of India', decided on 26.09.2011. Therefore these appeals are dismissed as time barred. Consequentially, applications for stay are disposed of as infructuous. NIL R) JUDGE DECEMBER 21, 2011 pkb . LA.App. No. 794/2011 &LA.App. No. 795/2011 Page 3