← Library
Bombay High CourtMCA/1022/2016rejected

S.K. Shukla, Executive Vice President All India Guards Council v. Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Nagpur And Another

2021-01-25Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande2 pages

mca1022.16 15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MCA NO.1022/2016 IN W.P. NO.3081/2015 (D) Shri S.K.Shukla, Executive Vice President, All India Guard' s Council, Nagpur ..vs..

Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Nagpur and anr ................................................................................................................................................................... OfÏce Notes, OfÏce Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... None for the Applicant/Petitioner

CORAM

: V.M.DESHPANDE J.

DATED : JANUARY 25 , 2021.

1.

This is an application for restoration of the writ petition.

2.

By filing the writ petition, the petitioner, who is the Executive Vice President, All India Guards' Council, is challenging order dated 24.11.2014 passed by learned Presiding Officer of CGIT whereby learned Presiding Officer refused to adjudicate reference on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 3.

In the writ petition, Notices of final disposal were issued. Thereafter, when the petition came up for its admission on 6.9.2016, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner though the respondent was represented by counsel. On 6.9.2016, this Court found that on earlier occasion also the writ petition was dismissed and, thereafter, it was restored. Still, after the restoration, nobody appeared. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.

4.

Today, when this application, which is filed in the year 2016 for restoration, was taken up, nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant nor any request is also there on the part of .....2/-

mca1022.16 15 learned counsel for the applicant for adjournment. 5.

Having gone through contents of the application, I see no reason to interfere with order dated 6.9.2016. Hence, the misc. civil application is rejected and disposed of. JUDGE !! BRW !!

...../-