Dismissed

Shri. Arvind R. Vetkar v. Union of India, Thru the Secretary, Ministry of Defence , Delhi and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Oct 2018WP/11313/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that declined to grant ad-interim stay against a transfer order. The Court held that the petitioner suppressed a crucial document regarding the withdrawal of security pass and transfer effect, justifying the Tribunal's denial of relief and the rejection of the petition. Disposition: Dismissed/Judgme

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected due to suppression of the transfer order.

Shri. Arvind R. Vetkar Vs Union of India, Thru the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Shridhar Sutar 1 506-wp-11313.18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 11313 OF 2018

¶4

Arvind R. Vetkar … Petitioner Versus Union of India and others … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Vicky A. Nagrani for the Petitioner. Mr. Mandar Limaye for the Respondents.

¶6

CORAM : A. S. OKA AND M. S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : 05^th OCTOBER, 2018.

¶7

P. C.:

¶8

Not on board. Taken on board.

¶9

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents produces on record a copy of movement order dated 19^th September, 2018 passed by the Senior Administrative Officer. The same is taken on record and marked as “O-1” for identification. When this order was shown to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, initially, he stated that the petitioner has not received the same. However, when he showed the said order to the petitioner who is present in person, he accepted that the said order was served upon him on 24^th September, 2018. The said order records that an effect has been given to the order of transfer and in fact permanent security pass issued to the petitioner has been withdrawn.

¶10

1 of 2

¶11

Shridhar Sutar 2 506-wp-11313.18.doc

¶12

In our view, this document taken on record marked “O-1” ought not to have been suppressed by the petitioner while filing Original Application. A copy of the said document is also not annexed to this petition.

¶13

By the impugned order, the Central Administrative Tribunal has declined to grant ad-interim relief of stay to the order of transfer. The petitioner had sought discretionary and equitable relief. In view of suppression of the said order dated 19^th September, 2018 (taken on record and marked as “O-1”), the Tribunal was fully justified in not granting ad-interim relief. Suppression of the said document is also a sufficient ground for declining to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.

¶14

( M. S. SONAK, J. ) ( A. S. OKA, J. )

¶15

Shridhar Digitally signed byShridhar Marutirao Marutirao Sutar Date: 2018.10.09 Sutar 11:24:13 +0530

¶16

2 of 2

Shri. Arvind R. Vetkar v. Union of India, Thru the Secretary, Ministry of Defence , Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Arvind R. Vetkar v. Union of India, Thru the Secretary, Ministry of Defence , Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Anr. Vs a.N.Bhutani

Union of India, through G.M.Central Railway Vs Mrs.Uma Shanka Mahajan and Ors.

Sakhubai Widow of Late Dinkar Maruti Sonawane Vs Union of India and Ors.

Miss Sheetal James and Anr. Vs Mrt (the Hon'Ble President)

Mr. Balu Shankar Salve Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Madhav Vishwanath Pendse Vs State of Maharashtra through Dept. of Forest and Anr.