Bombay High Court
Bhagwan Dhondiba Ghuge And Others vs The Union Of India And Others on 1 November, 2018
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R.G. Avachat
904-WP-12117-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12117 OF 2016
Prakash Bhagaji Wani and Others ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Union of India and Others ..RESPONDENTS
WITH
CA/14237/17 IN WP/12117/16, WP/30/17, CA/14216/17 IN
WP/30/17, CP/663/17 IN WP/9837/17, WP/9447/17, CA/14235/17
IN WP/9447/17, WP/9837/17, CA/14231/17 IN WP/9837/17,
WP/9910/17, CA/14233/17 IN WP/9910/17, WP/10373/17,
WP/11801/17, WP/13060/17
....
Mr. S.D. Tawshikar, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. Anil Singh, Addl. Solicitor General for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
....
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
DATED : 01st NOVEMBER, 2018
ORDER :
Mr. Anil Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General raises a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternate remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal. He submits that similarly situated almost 625 candidates have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The matter was part heard before the Central Administrative Tribunal. As this Court is seized with the matter, the Tribunal did not 1 / 4 ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 02:01:50 ::: 904-WP-12117-16.odt proceed further. One of the candidates approached the Principal Seat of this Court at Bombay. The Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat directed the Central Administrative Tribunal to decide the matter irrespective of pendency of the present writ petition. The learned Additional Solicitor General further submits that in view of the availability of the alternate remedy, present petition may not be entertained. He relies on the following judgments :-
i) L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261.
ii) Lalit Kumar Salve Vs. Director General of Police and Others in Writ Petition (L) No. 3293 of 2017.
iii) Nikahat Rafik Shaikh and Another Vs. The Union of India and Others in Writ Petition (St) No. 25077 of 2017.
iv) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Another Vs. Subhas Sharma etc. reported in All India Services Law Journal VII -
2002(2).
v) Khalilkhan Ajmatkhan Multani Vs. Union of India and Others in Writ Petition No. 6529 of 2018.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court had entertained the writ petition and finally decided the same. 2 / 4 ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 02:01:50 :::
904-WP-12117-16.odt Subsequently, review was filed by the respondents and this Court has allowed the review. The learned Counsel further submits that the issue is concluded by the order of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 10513 of 2016 under order dated 13th July, 2017 and further clarified in S.L.P. No. 848642 of 2017 vide order dated 20th March, 2018.
3. The learned Additional Solicitor General disputes the said aspect about conclusion of the issue by the Apex Court.
4. However, following facts and circumstances are such that it would not be proper now to relegate the petitioner to avail alternate remedy :-
i) Writ petition is filed in the year 2016. Notices were issued. Thereafter the petition was heard on merits by the Court and this Court under order dated 02nd August, 2017 allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to take consequential steps.
ii) After the writ petition was allowed, the present respondents filed review petition before this Court. After hearing the parties, this Court allowed the review petition and restored the writ petition to its original position. 3 / 4 ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 02:01:50 :::
904-WP-12117-16.odt
5. Considering the fact that this Court had already taken congnisance of the writ petition and had heard the petition on merits and it was allowed on the basis of the concession given by the learned Counsel representing the Union, it will not be appropriate now to relegate the parties to alternate remedy. We also make it clear that pendency of the writ petition would not be an impediment for the Central Administrative Tribunal to decide the original applications filed before it on merits.
6. Place the writ petition for hearing on 26th November, 2018.
( R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) SSD 4 / 4 ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 02:01:50 :::