Vishnu Babu Mule vs Union Of India Through The General ...

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 15478 Bom
Judgement Date : 27 October, 2021

Bombay High Court
Vishnu Babu Mule vs Union Of India Through The General ... on 27 October, 2021
Bench: Makarand Subhash Karnik
                                                                                    2. wp 2888.2019
                      Urmila Ingale


         Digitally
         signed by
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
         URMILA
URMILA
PRAMOD
         PRAMOD
         INGALE
         Date:
                                         ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INGALE   2021.10.28
         18:45:23
         +0530




                                             WRIT PETITION NO. 2888 OF 2019


                                 Vishnu Babu Mule                   .... Petitioner
                                      Vs.
                                 Union of India and anr.            ..... Respondents


                                 Ms. Tanaya Patankar i/b Mr. Sanjay Gawde, for the
                                 Petitioner.
                                 Mr. Neel Helekar a/w Mr. Aniruddha A. Garge, for the
                                 Respondents.


                                                   CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
                                                           M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2021 P.C.:

1. On October 20, 2021 we had adjourned hearing with a view to enable Mr. Helekar, learned counsel for respondents to inform us as to whether any additional affidavit was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (hereafter "the Tribunal" for short) after disposal of Writ Petition No. 851 of 2013 by the order of a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 24th January 2018 explaining the 1/2

2. wp 2888.2019 reasons for the delay in issuance of the charge-sheet against the petitioner. Today, Mr. Helekar submits that no additional affidavit was filed before the Tribunal. He has, however, prayed for an opportunity to file an affidavit before us explaining the delay.

2. We find no reason to grant such prayer of Mr. Helekar having regard to the fact that the original application was remitted to the Tribunal by the order dated 24th January 2018 for the aforesaid purpose and the respondents having failed to avail of the opportunity extended to them, they do not deserve any further opportunity.

3. Hearing stands concluded; judgment is reserved.

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)                       (CHIEF JUSTICE)




                                                             2/2