The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Pairshad, Amravati Another v. Sahebrao Raysing Rathod and Others

Bombay HC20 Dec 2016CAO/1939/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a review application filed in Writ Petition No. 5924/2013. The application was rejected on the ground that the impugned order had attained finality after the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions without granting liberty to seek review. A prayer for stay of the rejection order was also rejected.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Pairshad… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

CAO1939-16.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶4

C.A.O. No.1939/2016

¶5

¶6

MCA St. No. 7865/2016 (for Review) in

¶7

Writ Petition No.5924/2013 (D) (The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati and another .vs. Sahebrao Raysing Rathod and others)

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders

¶9

Mr. M.G. Rathi, Advocate for Applicants Mrs. M.S. Naik, AGP for Non-applicants Nos. 45 & 46

¶10

CORAM : B.R. Gavai & S.B. Shukre, JJ. DATED : December 20, 2016.

¶11

For the grounds stated in the application,

¶12

the application is allowed. The delay is condoned.

¶13

M.C.A. St. No.7865/2016 .

¶14

The applicants have approached this Court seeking review of the judgment and order dated 18.06.2014 passed by this Court. 2. Mr. Rathi, learned counsel for the applicants submits that another Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2440/2014 along with the companion matters has taken a different view and, therefore, it is a good case for reviewing the order passed by this Court.

¶15

The order under review was challenged by the present applicants before Their Lordships of the Apex Court. Their Lordships of the Apex Court had

¶16

¶17

CAO1939-16.odt

¶18

disposed of the special leave petitions on 01.02.2016 by observing thus:-

¶19

"Delay condoned.

¶20

The special leave petitions are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."

¶21

It could thus be seen that the order under review was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court had dismissed the special leave petitions. As such the judgment and order under review has reached finality.

¶22

It could further be seen that before the Apex Court, even the liberty was not sought to seek review of the judgment and order under review.

¶23

In that view of the matter, we do not find that case is made out for invoking the review jurisdiction. Application is rejected.

¶24

At this stage , learned counsel for the applicants seeks stay of the order passed by this Court for a period of four weeks.

¶25

We do not understand as to what purpose would be served by staying the order dismissing the review application. The prayer is rejected.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

halwai

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Pairshad, Amravati Another v. Sahebrao Raysing Rathod and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Pairshad, Amravati Another v. Sahebrao Raysing Rathod and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrawan S/O Ganpati Kumbhare and Others Vs Union of India, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Thr. Its Secretary, New Delhi

Dr. (Mrs) Vibha W/O Jayant Mahajan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Dept. of Higher and Technical Eduation, and Others

Amravati Fair Price Shopkeeper Association through Its Secretary and 3 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Respondent No. 2 and Others

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Amravati and Another Vs Rahul S/O. Motising Brahman and Others

Nilesh Subhashrao Raut and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Daryapur, Amravti and Another

Adv. Ashish S/O Nandkishor Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Another