W.P.(C) 12615/2018 & connected matter. Page 1 of 2 $~8& 9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12615/2018 & CM APPL. 48990/2018 ANNUPRIYA AND ORS. .....Petitioners versus LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents + W.P.(C) 5481/2018 & CM APPL. 26819/2019 SANJEEV KUMAR AND ORS. .....Petitioners versus LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Appearances: Mr. Shanmuga Patro, Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocates for petitioners. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with Mr. N.K. Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam, Advocates for GNCTD. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 16.04.2025 1. In these two writ petitions, orders of the Court for filing of rejoinders and payment of costs have not been complied with. 2. By order dated 30.09.2024, passed in a batch of writ petitions, including these two writ petitions, the Court directed as follows: “2. The counter affidavits are stated to have been filed in July 2019 and thereafter, the petitioners kept taking adjournment to file rejoinders. Finally, vide order dated 03.10.2023, last and final This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2025 at 12:05:57 W.P.(C) 12615/2018 & connected matter. Page 2 of 2 opportunity was granted to file rejoinder within six weeks failing which the same were to be taken on record subject to cost of Rs. 5000/- to deposited with the DHCLSC. But that was not done, so vide order dated 26.02.2024, another opportunity was granted to file rejoinders subject to cost of Rs. 5000/- to be deposited with the DHCLSC. Even thereafter, neither costs were deposited nor rejoinders were filed. Rather, on 14.08.2024 learned counsel for petitioner stated that he wanted to amend the writ petitions and would file applications in that regard. Even those amendment applications have not been filed. 3. On being called upon to address as to why for non deposit of costs these petitions be not dismissed for non prosecution, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the costs were for filing rejoinder and since petitioners do not want to file rejoinders, there is no question of depositing of any costs. 4. I find the submission totally unacceptable in view of above position that for past five years, the petitioners kept taking adjournments in the name of rejoinders. Apparently, that was because of preliminary objections taken in the counter affidavits. 5. Despite such conduct of petitioners, I would still prefer to grant them another opportunity. As such, these matters are adjourned directing the petitioners to deposit the entire previous costs with further costs of Rs. 10,000/- in each case within one week with DHCLSC, failing which appropriate consequences shall follow.” 3. In the other writ petitions, the petitioners have deposited costs and filed their rejoinders. However, costs have not been deposited in these two petitions despite the opportunity granted by the order dated 30.09.2024. 4. Consequently, Mr. Shanmuga Patro, learned counsel for the petitioners, seeks permission to withdraw these writ petitions with liberty to take alternative remedies, if any, as may be available to the petitioners. 5. The writ petitions, alongwith the pending applications, are disposed of, with liberty as aforesaid. PRATEEK JALAN, J APRIL 16, 2025 ‘Bhupi/JM’/ This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2025 at 12:05:57