Disposed

M/s Swastik Associates v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC23 Aug 2012CWJC/14957/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought permission to withdraw one prayer and a common order to dispose of the remaining prayer based on a previous case. The court ruled in favor of the petition, disposing the application and quashing the impugned order with liberty for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of; impugned order dated 09.07.2012 quashed; liberty granted for pre-decisional hearing and fresh orders.

M/s Swastik Associates Vs The Union Of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14957 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. M/S Swastik Associates, A Proprietorship Firm Having Its Place Of Business At 10, 'A', Narmada Apartment, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Through Its Karta Namely Anand Vardhan, S/O Late Narayan Prasad Dalmia, R/O 53, B-Narmada Apartment, Exhibition Road, Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary Ministry Of Railway, Government of India, New Delhi 2. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur 3. The Chief Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur 4. The Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), Samastipur 5. The Goods Superintendent, Madhepura

¶3

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Adv. and Mrs.Priya Gupta, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶4

2 23-08-2012 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the prayer made in clause (i) of paragraph 1 of the writ application with liberty to the petitioner to file separate writ application for the same.

¶5

Liberty is granted.

¶6

In respect of prayer made in clause (ii) of paragraph 1, he refers to two orders passed by this Court, annexed as Annexure-6 and 6A, as well as one order dated 13.08.2012 passed in CWJC No.20814 of 2011, and submits that since the facts and circumstances of the present case are same, the same order may

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.14957 of 2012 (2) dt.23-08-2012

¶8

2 / 2

¶9

be passed in this writ application also in respect of the petitioner.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondent Railway does not oppose to it.

¶11

In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of and it is held that so far as prayer made in clause (ii) of paragraph 1 is concerned, the writ application shall stand disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in CWJC NO.20814 of 2011. Consequently, the impugned order dated 09.07.2012, as contained in Annexure-3, shall stand quashed with liberty to the respondents to give a pre-decisional hearing to the petitioner and thereafter to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.

¶12

Arvind/-

¶13

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

M/s Swastik Associates v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Swastik Associates v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Messers Kumar Stone Works Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Abdul Hafiz Khan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Ganesh Ram Dokania Engineers and Contractors Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Raj Paper Products and Anr. Vs The Central Bank Of India and Ors.

M/s Vishal Builtech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The East Central Railway and Or5s

The United Sports Works Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.