Union Of India And Others v. Sushil Kumar Aggarwal .

Factual and Procedural Background

The writ petition was heard by video conferencing. Proxy counsel for the petitioners sought an adjournment because arguing counsel Mr. Ravi Prakash was facing personal difficulty. [1][2]

Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petition had become infructuous because the impugned judgment had been implemented and the respondent had received retirement benefits on 23 October 2020 pursuant to vigilance clearance dated 15 June 2020. [3] The petitioners sought time to obtain instructions, and the matter was adjourned to 13 January 2021. [4][5]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the writ petition had become infructuous following implementation of the impugned judgment and payment of the respondent’s retirement benefits. [3]
2. Whether the petitioners should be granted time to obtain instructions. [4][5]

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

• Proxy counsel requested an adjournment because arguing counsel was facing personal difficulty. [2]
• Counsel requested time to obtain instructions. [4]

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous because the impugned judgment had already been implemented and retirement benefits had been paid. [3]

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recorded the respondent’s submission concerning implementation of the impugned judgment and the petitioners’ request for time to obtain instructions. [3][4] Rather than deciding the respondent’s contention that the petition had become infructuous, the court granted the requested adjournment and fixed the matter for 13 January 2021. [5]

Holding and Implications

ADJOURNED: The matter was adjourned to 13 January 2021 at the request of the petitioners’ counsel. [5]

The order did not finally determine whether the writ petition was infructuous or decide the merits of the petition. The direct effect was that the proceedings remained pending for the adjourned date; no new precedent was set. [3][5]