28 March 2018
Supreme Court
Download

VINOD Vs COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE CHANDRAPUR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
Judgment by: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
Case number: C.A. No.-003352-003352 / 2018
Diary number: 10036 / 2018
Advocates: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL Vs


1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL  NO. 3352/2018

(ARISING FROM SLP (C) NO. 7492/2018)

VINOD                                              APPELLANT(S)                                 VERSUS

COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT SELECTION  COMMITTEE, CHANDRAPUR & ORS.   RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

Leave granted. 2. In the nature of order we propose to pass, it is not  necessary  to  issue  notice  to  the  respondents since  the  interest  of  the  respondents  is  not otherwise affected. 3. The  appellant  has  been  non-suited  by  the  High Court  on the  ground that  the second  writ petition filed is not maintainable, having withdrawn earlier writ petition without any leave. 4. The order dated 28.07.2016 passed in the earlier Writ Petition No.2748/2016 reads as follows:-

“Shri V.A. Dhabe, the learned counsel for  the  petitioner  seeks  permission  to withdraw the Writ Petition.

Permission  is  granted.   The  Writ Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.”

1

2

5. It  is  fairly  clear  that  the  petition  was withdrawn  only  on  account  of  the  pendency  of  the appeal.  Apparently, that is why the High Court has, in  fact,  not  dismissed  the  petition;  it  has  only disposed it of. 6. In  the  second  writ  petition  leading  to  the impugned judgment, there is a specific prayer, which reads as follows:-

“(iii) quash  and  set  aside  the communication dated 3.9.2016 at Annexure-10 issued by respondent No.5 being  violative of principles of natural justice and bad in law;”

7. It  appears  that  the  prayer  challenging  the subsequent order passed in appeal was not brought to the notice of the High Court. 8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition certainly is maintainable.  Accordingly, we set aside the  impugned  judgment  with  a  request  to  the  High Court  to  consider  Writ  Petition  No.484/2017  on merits. 9. We make it clear that we have not considered the merits of the matter. 10. The appellant is also directed to serve a copy of this  judgment  along  with  a  copy  of  this petition/appeal to the respondents. 11. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

2

3

12. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 13. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.........................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.........................J.               [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]  

.........................J.               [NAVIN SINHA]  

NEW DELHI; MARCH 28, 2018.

3