Remanded

Rahul Kashinath Simpi v. the Union of India through Secretary and Others

Bombay HC8 Sept 2021WP/1419/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to file a revision under Rule 29 of CRPF Rules 1955 which was treated as a simple representation. Court permitted filing the revision with time limit and directed authorities to place it before proper authority.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted time to submit notes of submission; representation restored to file of Respondent No. 2 for registration as revision under Rule 29.

Rahul Kashinath Simpi Vs the Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1419.20wp

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

918 WRIT PETITION NO.1419 OF 2020

¶5

RAHUL KASHINATH SIMPI

¶6

VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr D. A. Mane, Advocate for petitioner; Mr A. G. Talhar, ASGI for respondents

¶8

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND S. G. MEHARE, JJ. DATE : 8th September, 2021

¶9

PER COURT:

¶10

Shri. Mane, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed before us a compilation of four pages, which are collectively marked as ‘X’ for identification.

¶11

It is obvious that, by an order dated 25/01/2019, respondent No.3 has dealt with the appeal and has rejected the same on it’s merits. The petitioner then preferred a representation dated 14/02/2019 which actually is a revision under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules 1955. Treating the same to be a mere representation, respondent No.2 has disposed off the same by a communication dated 15/03/2019 and has permitted the petitioner to file a revision under Rule 29.

¶12

1419.20wp

¶13

(2)

¶14

The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits, that his revision dated 14/02/2019 can be treated as a revision. If there are any deficiencies or if the revision is not as per the format, the authorities can direct the petitioner to file a proper revision under Rule 29. As such, he desires to avail of the said remedy. The time spent by him in this Court till today, is likely to be an impediment, as Rule 29 prescribes a limitation period of 30 days.

¶15

In view of the above, on the request of the petitioner, this petition is disposed off.

¶16

His representation dated 14/02/2019 is restored to the file of respondent No.2. The same shall be registered as a revision under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 and respondent No.3 shall place the same before respondent No.2. In addition thereto, we grant time to the petitioner to submit written notes of submissions which shall be delivered to respondent No.2, on or before 15/10/2021. Thereafter, respondent No.2 shall pass a reasoned order on the said revision, in accordance with Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955.

¶17

(S. G. MEHARE, J.)

¶18

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶19

sjk

Rahul Kashinath Simpi v. the Union of India through Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kashinath Simpi v. the Union of India through Secretary and Others

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

Rameshchandra Radhakisan Somani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rishu Kichu Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd., and Others

Vicky Bhagwan Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ratnamala Vitthalrao Bidgar Alias Ratnamala Santosh Narate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Yamuna Mashnaji Pandhare Alias Yamuna Narayan Godaji Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ajmal Hussain Mohammad Hanif Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others