Widow challenged a CAT order in a writ petition despite not being party to the original application and without impleading the original applicant. The court held the writ petition was not maintainable and the remedy lay in an application before the CAT for recall of its order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3611 of 2019
======================================================
Sona Devi W/o Late Anirudha @ Anirudha Yadav Resident of Mohalla-Ward No.10,Chhoti Olpura (Yadav Tola) P.O. Ghoga,P.S. Kahalgaon,Dist.Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
assailing the order dated 21.01.2016 in O.A. No. 1047 of 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’). Original applicant -
Patna High Court CWJC No.3611 of 2019(5) dt.16-10-2023 2/3
Anirudh who had filed O.A. No. 1047 of 2012 is not arrayed as party to the present writ petition. On the other hand, petitioner has impleaded Madhoo Yadav as 12th respondent.
2. Further petitioner is not a party to the O.A. No. 1047 of 2012. In this backdrop, the present writ petition is not maintainable. At the best, petitioner Sona Devi who is stated to be wife of Anirudh Yadav is entitled to file original application before the CAT in recalling the impugned order dated 21.01.2016 passed in O.A. No. 1047 of 2012, in the event her right is being affected by virtue of CAT order dated 21.01.2016. In other words, if the third party right is affected by any order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, in that event appropriate remedy is in filing original application before the same Bench in recalling the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and consequential reliefs, if any. This issue has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Rama Rao and Others vs. M.G. Maheshwara Rao and Others reported in (2007) 14 SCC 54.
3. Thus, the petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the CAT dated 21.01.2016 passed in O.A. No. 1047 of 2012 on the issue of maintainability of the present writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed
Patna High Court CWJC No.3611 of 2019(5) dt.16-10-2023 3/3
reserving liberty to the petitioner to invoke remedy of filing original application before the CAT in recalling the order dated 21.01.2016 passed in O.A. No. 1047 of 2012, in accordance with law. In the event of filing original application by the petitioner – Sona Devi, CAT is requested to take note of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
GAURAV S./-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a non-party to the CAT original application can challenge the Tribunal's order by writ petition instead of seeking recall before the CAT.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rama Rao and Others vs. M.G. Maheshwara Rao and OthersRelied on¶2
(2007) 14 SCC 54 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sona Devi
The Ministry Of Railway Through The General Manager
The C.P.O., Zonal Office, Eastern Railway, Calcutta
The Divisional Railway Manager, Divisional Office, Eastern Railway, Maldah
Madhoo Yadav
P. B. Bajanthri
Arun Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
