Disposed

Union of India through the Secretary and Ors. v. Shri. Harish Dharnia and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Sept 2014WP/8992/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal should not have finally disposed of the underlying application without hearing the petitioners. It disposed of the writ petition without granting interim relief, keeping the respondents' rights open, and directed the Registry to communicate the order to the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Relief for continuation of interim relief was not granted; petition disposed of.

Union of India through the Secretary and Ors. Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

8.wp.8992.14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8992 OF 2014

¶5

Union of India and Ors ..Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Shri Harish Dharnia and Anr ..Respondents

¶8

Mr. Anil Singh ASG a/w Smt Neeta Masurkar, Mr. V. S. Masurkar,for the Petitioners.

¶9

Mr. J. P. Cama, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Rahul Wadla,for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM :- NARESH H. PATIL & B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE :- SEPTEMBER 29, 2014.

¶11

P. C.:

¶12

The learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) for the Petitioners

¶13

takes exception to the manner in which the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) disposed of the original application in limine by an order dated 19th September, 2014 which is impugned herein.

¶14

2 The learned ASG has placed on record a copy of the order dated

¶15

26th September, 2014 signed by Mr. B. K. Manthan, the Under Secretary

¶16

Aswale 1/3

¶17

8.wp.8992.14

¶18

to the Government of India. The learned ASG submits that an order has been passed in compliance with the order passed by the CAT, which is impugned herein. He further submits that the order passed on 26th September, 2014 has been communicated to the Respondents / Original Applicants.

¶19

3 It is further submitted that in view of the order dated 26th September, 2014, nothing survives now, in this Petition.

¶20

Respondents/Original Applicants submits that the order passed on 26th September, 2014 by the Government has been received in the early morning hours today. The Respondents would resort to appropriate remedies as advised. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the interim relief granted by the Tribunal directing not to hold D.P.C. be continued. The request is objected to by the learned ASG.

¶21

5 We have perused the record placed before us and the impugned order. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought not to have finally disposed of the original application in limine, without noticing the Petitioners herein. Admittedly the Petitions were not heard by the

¶22

Aswale 2/3

¶23

Tribunal.

¶24

6 In compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal, an order has been passed by the Government on 26th September, 2014 and communicated to the Respondents herein. In the facts, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the Respondents/Original Applicants for continuation of the interim relief seeking direction of staying D. P. C. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the order passed on 26th September, 2014, communicated to the Respondents and keeping rights of the Respondents herein expressly open, we dispose of the Petition.

¶25

7 The Registry to communicate this order to the Tribunal.

¶26

( B. P. COLABAWALLA, J. ) ( NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶27

Aswale

Union of India through the Secretary and Ors. v. Shri. Harish Dharnia and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India through the Secretary and Ors. v. Shri. Harish Dharnia and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman Revansiddhe Survase Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Satishkumar Ashok Madake Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors.

Suman Revansiddhe Survase Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Hanmant D. Shinde Vs the Municipal Corporation Ot the City of Thane and Ors.

Bithika Singh Vs Dig Medical and Ors.

Vijay Shridhar Panicker Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.