Bombay High CourtCAW/3710/2014dismissedrule discharged

Sanjivan Education Society Through Its President Secretary Shri Ramdas Nathhuji Gajbhiye And Anothe v. Presiding Officer,School Tribunal Nagpur And 2 Others

2015-06-12Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp5980.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5980 OF 2013.

(SANJIVAN EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR..VS..PRESIDING OFFICER, SCHOOL TRIBUNAL & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : JUNE 12, 2015.

C.A.W.NO. 3710/2014.

Heard Mr.S.G.Karmarkar, the learned advocate for the applicant/ respondent No.2, Mr. S.R. Deshpande, the learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr.T.R.Kankale, the learned A.G.P. for the respondent No.1 and Mr. K.L. Dharmadhikari, the learned A.G.P. for respondent No.3. This is an application filed by the respondent No.2/ employee praying that the interim order granted by this Court be vacated.

This Court by order dated 29th January, 2014 issued Rule and granted interim order. It is recorded that the learned advocate for the respondent No.2 was absent on that day. The learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the cause list dated 29th January, 2014 did not show his name and therefore, he could not remain present on that day. However, this averment is not made in the application.

I see no reason to vacate the interim order passed

2 wp5980.13 by this Court. The Civil Application is dismissed. C.A.W.NO. 3709/2014.

Considering the pendency of the petitions of the earlier years and the fact that the respondent No.2 has not been able to make out any case for grant of early hearing, the application is dismissed.

C.A.W.NO. 795/2015.

This is an application filed by the petitioners praying for permission to conduct fresh inquiry. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties, I am of the view that the issue as to whether the matter has to be remitted for fresh inquiry will be adjudicated at the time of final hearing and therefore, separate application is not required.

The civil application is dismissed.

JUDGE RRaut..