Dismissed

Union of India through General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur and Others v. Gudaru Yethi Rajulu and Others

Bombay HC9 Jan 2024CAW/39/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Union of India sought extension to comply with the court's earlier judgment directing compliance within eight weeks, citing a pending Supreme Court modification request. Noting the judgment itself was not under challenge and the related Special Leave Petition had been dismissed on merit, the court found no reason for extension and rejected the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Union of India through General Manager, South East… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 caw39.24

¶2

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

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 39 OF 2024 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5004 OF 2016 (D)

¶5

( Union of India and others ..vs.. Gudaru Yethi Rajulu and others )

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

Mr. S.A. Chaudhari, Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.V. Shiralkar, Counsel for respondent Nos.1,3 to 21 & 23 to 26.

¶9

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &

¶10

ABHAY J. MANTRI, J J . DATED : 09-01-2024

¶11

The prayer in the application for grant of extension to comply with the judgment delivered by this Court on 18^th July, 2023 in Writ Petition No. 5004/2016.

¶12

Mr. S.A. Chaudhari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that even if this Court has observed that in the earlier round the Union of India have been approached before the Apex Court and Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 22^nd February, 2023 of which note was taken by this Court while deciding the aforesaid writ petition, the fact remains that the petitioners have taken out another Miscellaneous Application seeking modification of the order passed by the Apex Court. According to him, since the issue in one of the similar matter is pending vide Miscellaneous Application before the Apex Court, it is necessary to grant extension to comply with the judgment of this Court, in

¶13

2 caw39.24

¶14

the interest of justice. The prayer is opposed by the original petitioners/non-applicants herein as according to them, the judgment is self explanatory and considering the relief claimed, the Court had already directed that the compliance to be made within a period of eight weeks.

¶15

We have considered the submissions.

¶16

The fact remains that the judgment of which the extension for compliance is sought was delivered on 18^th July, 2023. As far as this very judgment is concerned, same is not subject matter before the Apex Court.

¶17

The applicants are relying on the prayer for modification moved in some different Miscellaneous Application. However, this Court is required to be sensitive to the fact that the Special Leave Petition has already been dismissed on merit.

¶18

In this background, we hardly see any reason to grant extension to comply the judgment as has been prayed by the applicants.

¶19

Apart from above, this Court is also required to be sensitive to the observations made by this Court qua the decision of the Delhi High Court and the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition preferred by the applicants and the time bound directions given by this Court for compliance of the judgment.

¶20

3 caw39.24

¶21

That being so, the application being devoid of merit, stands rejected.

¶22

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶23

adgokar

Union of India through General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur and Others v. Gudaru Yethi Rajulu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Union of India through General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur and Others v. Gudaru Yethi Rajulu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ku. Daya D/O Ravindra Wardekar Vs Sceduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Its Deputy Director and Member Secretary

New Adarsha Shikshan Sanstha, Pulgaon, Wardha Thr. Secy., Rajkumar Lasmanrao Dudhe Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Dept. of School, Mumbai and Ors.

Rajendra Vishwanath Moon Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports, Mumbai and Ors.

Nidhi Sakshi Park Apartment, through Its Secretary Vs the Collector Amravati

Shri Mangesh S/O Ashokrao Mallelwar Vs State of Mahrashtra, in the Ministry of Revenue and Forest, through Its Secretary, Mumbai and 2

Dilip S/O Chandrbhaan Kapgate Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary the Dept. of Rural Development, Mumbai and Others