Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Pratap Singh Yadav vs Union Of India Thr on 5 August, 2019
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-4308-2016
(Manoj Pratap Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India and others)
Gwalior, Dated : 05-08-2019
Shri Manoj Pratap Singh Yadav, petitioner is present in
person.
Shri S.S. Bansal, counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 9.
Shri Vivek Khedkar, counsel for the respondent No. 3. None for the respondents No. 4 and 5.
Shri Himanshu Pandey, counsel for the respondent No. 6. None for the respondent No. 7.
Shri Prashant Sharma, counsel for the respondent No. 8. The petitioner was insisting that matter should be heard finally.
However, it was submitted by counsel for the respondent No. 8 that I.A. Nos. 4426/2017, 4752/2016 and 2040/2018, which are applications for taking additional documents on record, are still pending and have not been decided so far. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent No. 8 that the said applications may be decided before initiation of the arguments.
By the above-mentioned three applications, the petitioner has filed certain documents and prayed for taking the same on record.
Since the respondents have not filed their written objection to these applications, accordingly, I.A. Nos. 4426/2017, 4752/2016 and 2040/2018 are allowed and documents filed along with these 2 applications are hereby taken on record.
Counsel for the respondent No. 8 prays for and is granted four days time to file additional response to the documents filed along with I.A. Nos. 4426/2017, 4752/2016 and 2040/2018.
At this stage, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the term of the respondent No. 8 for the post of Director, Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management is going to expire within a period of one month and advertisement for fresh recruitment has been issued, therefore, dilatory tactics are being adopted by the counsel for the respondent No. 8 so that the term is completed by the respondent No. 8.
In view of the said submission, it is made clear that no adjournment shall be granted on the next date of hearing. The other counsel were directed to point out that if any other applications are pending and have not been decided so far so that the matter is not adjourned on the next date of hearing.
Accordingly, counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 9 submitted that I.A. No. 4283/2018 and Doc. No. 4610/2017 are still pending.
The petitioner has not filed any response to these applications. When the petitioner was asked that whether he wants to file reply to these applications or not, he submitted that dilatory tactics are being adopted.
It is really unfortunate that instead of answering to the queries raised by the Court, the petitioner is trying to pressurize the 3 Court to hear the matter by ignoring the pending applications. However, when displeasure was expressed by this Court, the petitioner has withdrawn his words. Accordingly, they are ignored and the petitioner prays for four days time to file response to these applications.
Time granted.
It is directed that I.A. No. 4283/2018 and Doc. No. 4610/2017 shall be decided at the time of final hearing.
It is submitted by the petitioner that I.A. No. 5508/2017 has been filed under Section 195 read with Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and in continuation of the said application, I.A. No. 15/2018 has been filed.
It appears that none of the respondents have filed their response to these applications. Accordingly, all the respondents are granted four days time to file their response to I.A. Nos. 5508/2017 and 15/2018.
I.A. Nos. 5508/2017 and 15/2018 shall be decided at the time of final hearing.
At this stage, on a specific query raised by this Court, it is submitted by the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents that now no other application is pending except mentioned above and, therefore, no adjournment shall be sought by any of them on the ground of pendency of any application.
List this case on 12.08.2019. It is made clear that the case shall not be adjourned at any cost because according to the 4 petitioner, which is not disputed by any of the respondent that term of the respondent No 8 for the post of Director, Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management is going to expire within a period of one month and thereafter this petition would become an academic issue only.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2019.08.05 17:59:24 +05'30'