Badruddin S/O Mehdu Hirani vs Mah.State Electricity ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 50 Bom

                                 1




                                                                 
                                         
                                        
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
         Misc. Civil Application St. No. 6261 of 2009
                             With




                              
     Civil Application Nos. 1618, 1621, 514, 515 and 518
     all of 2009 AND Civil Application St. Nos. 15132
                   
     and 18018 both of 2009
                              IN
                Writ Petition No.2540 of 2001
                  
     Badruddin son of Mehdy Hirani,
     serving as Asstt. Engineer
     (E&M) in MSEB, resident
      

     of Petiwal Building, First Floor,
     Dobi Nagar Road,
   



     Ansar Nagar, Nagpur-440 018.         ....          Petitioner.

                              Versus

     1.   Maharashtra State Electricity Board,





          through its Chairman,
          at Station Road,
          Prakashgad Building,
          Bandra (East),
          Mumbai-400 051.





     2.   Shri S.D. Damlay, Joint
          Secretary (Technical),
          MSEB, Bombay,
          resident of at Saraswati Apartment,
          Mayur Colony,
          Kothrud,
          Pune.




                                         ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:58:23 :::
                                        2
     3.   Shri M.V. Bage,
          Chief Engineer, Rural




                                                                        
          O & M Zone,
          MSEB, Nagpur,




                                                
          resiedent of Lakda Pool, Mahal,
          Nagpur-440 002.

     4.   Shri P.G. Huddar, Superintending
          Engineer, TLO & M Circle,




                                               
          MSEB, Nagpur, resident of
          Vasant Nagar, near
          Deeksha Maidan,
          Laxmi Nagar, Nagpur, and




                                  
     5.   Shri D.V. Pimplay, Executive
          Engineer, TLO & M Division,


          Amravati.
                    
          MSEB, Wardha, resident
          of Sai Nagar, Badnera Road,
                                                 ....          Respondents.
                   
                                  *****

     Petitioner-in-Person.
      

     Mr. G.E. Moharir, Adv.,for respondent no.1.
                              *****
   



                                   CORAM    :     A.H. JOSHI AND
                                                  A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

Reserved on : 17th November,2009.

Pronounced on : 8th December,2009.

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A.H. Joshi, J]:

1. Heard party-in-person at length.

2. The applicant, who denies to himself the legal

assistance, wants this Court to review order passed in Writ

Petition No. 3049 of 1980 allowing him to withdraw Writ

Petition No. 3049 of 1980 by order dated 22nd January,

1981.

3. Applicant s Writ Petition No. 3049 of 1980 was

withdrawn without obtaining leave of Court for filing a

fresh petition.

4. Applicant challenged the orders which were already

challenged by him in Writ Petition No. 3049 of 1980 by

filing a fresh Writ Petition No. 3020 of 1991.

5. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the

Writ Petition No. 3020 of 1991 on the ground that earlier

Writ Petition No. 3049 of 1980 was withdrawn without leave

of the Court.

6. Had it been applicant s case that it was a

mistaken belief or fraud or whatsoever reason available to

him in law due to which he had withdrawn his Writ Petition

No. 3049 of 1980, he could have punctually sought

restoration of Writ Petition No. 3049 of 1980. The

applicant, however, as noted above, was either rendered

legal advice which was not apt, or has himself on his own

acts distracted himself from proper legal advice.

7. In this situation, present application is

misconceived on all counts. The applicant may be bona

fide believing that whatever he is doing is within the four

corners of law. It not being so, the applicant is not

entitled for any relief.

8. Misc. Civil Application St. No. 6261 of 2009 is,

therefore, rejected.

9.

All other Civil Applications are disposed of being

consequential to disposal of Misc. Civil Application No.

6261 of 2009.

               JUDGE                                                 JUDGE

                                         -0-0-0-0-





     |hedau|