Gajanan S/O Mahadeo Dandale Vs the Union of India, Thr. General Manager, South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Gajanan S/O Mahadeo Dandale Vs the Union of India, Thr. General Manager, South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of as withdrawn, with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's representations dated 25.4.2024, 10.5.2024 and 24.5.2024 in accordance with law within six weeks; counsel for the petitioner undertook to communicate the order to the respondent authorities.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 21.1.2025 in O.A. No. 787/2024 (declining to interfere with the transfer order dated 24.4.2024), on the strength of a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's pending representations.

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner's representations had been pending with the respondents for over a year without decision, the Court held that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents by accepting counsel's request, and permitted the writ petition to be withdrawn.

Key takeaways

Respondent No. 2 was directed to decide the petitioner's representations dated 25.4.2024, 10.5.2024 and 24.5.2024 in accordance with law within six weeks; the petitioner's counsel undertook to communicate the order to the respondent authorities.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Kilor & Vyas, JJ.) — Writ Petition No. 1192 of 2025, decided 11-11-2025. The petition challenged the order dated 21.1.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in O.A. No. 787/2024, whereby the Tribunal rejected the Original Application and declined to interfere with the petitioner's transfer order dated 24.4.2024. On counsel's instruction that the petitioner's purpose would be served if his representations dated 25.4.2024, 10.5.2024 and 24.5.2024 — pending with respondent No. 2 for more than a year without decision — were directed to be decided, the Court held that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents in accepting the request. The petition was permitted to be withdrawn and disposed of as withdrawn, with respondent No. 2 directed to decide the said representations in accordance with law within six weeks; the petitioner's counsel undertook to communicate the order to the respondent authorities.

1 102wp1192.2025..doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 1192 OF 2025

(Gajanan s/o Mahadeo Dandale Vs. The Union of India and ors)

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

- - - - Mr. A.R. Ingole, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. A.S. Athalye, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3..

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR & RAJNISH R. VYAS,JJ.

DATED : 11-11-2025.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By way of present petition, the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, dated 21.1.2025, in Original Application No. 787/2024 rejecting the Original Application and thereby refusing to interfere in the transfer order of the petitioner dated 24.4.2024, is under challenge.

After hearing petition at length, learned counsel for petitioner, on instruction, makes a statement that if the representations made by petitioner on 25.4.2024, 10.5.2024 and 24.5.2024 are directed to be decided by respondent No. 2, the purpose of the petitioner will serve and in that case, the petitioner does not want to pursue the present petition.

The above referred representations are pending with the respondents from more than one year and there is no decision on the same. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if such request is accepted. Accordingly, writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn.

Belkhede, PS

2 102wp1192.2025..doc

The petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Respondent No. 2 is directed to decide above referred representations made by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from today. Learned counsel for petitioner undertakes to communicate this order to respondent authorities.

(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J) (ANIL S. KILOR, J)

Belkhede, PS