Dr. Arif Khan Vs Union of India

2 - National Institute Of Technology Raipur Through Its Director, Having Office At National Institute Of Technology, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

	---Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Harsh Verma, Advocate on behalf of
	Mr. Arham Siddiqui, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)No. 1	: Ms. Anmol Sharma, CGC.
For Respondent No. 2	: Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate.

¶21

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

18/11/2025

¶24

Since common question of facts and law is involved in both the cases, as such, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

¶25

The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the writ petitions. Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer made by the petitioners in all the petitions, however, in sum and substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The reliefs prayed in WPS No. 897/2023 (Dr. Arif Khan vs. Union of India & Another) are quoted hereinbelow in order to consider these cases and to decide the same.

¶26

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 06-01-2023

¶27

3

¶28

(Annexure P-1).

¶29

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to restore back the financial powers of Registrar provided under the statute as well as National Institute of Technology Act-2007.

¶30

10.3 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice..”

¶31

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has produced the order dated 23.02.2023, which unequivocally stipulates that the petitioner’s tenure on the post of Registrar stands ceased with effect from the said date. Consequently, in view of the cessation of his tenure, the petitioner has effectively been relieved and removed from the position of Registrar, NIT, Raipur, with effect from 23.02.2023.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already challenged the said order by filing an appropriate petition before the competent court, wherein the legality and propriety of the impugned order have been questioned, and therefore the present submission be considered in light of the fact that the matter is already under judicial scrutiny.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶34

Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matters, and particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner has already instituted a

¶35

4

¶36

separate petition assailing the order dated 23.02.2023, it is evident that the present petitions, having been filed prior in point of time, no longer survive for adjudication and therefore have rendered themselves infructuous.

¶37

Accordingly, the present writ petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶38

SD/-

¶39

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶40

Judge

¶41

Raghu Jat

Dr. Arif Khan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Arif Khan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Hichharam Nishad

Shyam Kumari @ Shyambai Patel Vs Santlal Sidar

Shyam Kumari @ Shyambai Patel Vs Hichchharam Nishad

Lokesh Ekka Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandrakala Ghritlahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yamuna Bai Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh