Delhi High Court
Dr.Rajendra P.Mishra & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors. on 15 September, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.10577/2009
% Date of Decision: 15.09.2011
Dr. Rajendra P. Mishra & Ors. .... Petitioners
Through Mr. Sumeet Sharma, Advocate for Mr.
Prashant Bhushan, Advocate
Versus
UOI & Ors. .... Respondents
Through Mr.Keshav Dayal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Singh and Mr. Gagan
Mathur, Advocates for respondent Nos. 2
&3
Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. A.S. Singh,
Advocates for respondent No. 1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may NO
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be NO
reported in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
CM No. 13397/2011 in W.P.(C) No.10577/2009
This is an application seeking correction of a typographical error
regarding the date of the order/judgment passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal as given in the writ petition.
Issue notice to the non-applicants.
Mr. R.V. Sinha, Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Gagan
Mathur, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 accept notice and state
that no replies to the application are to be filed.
The applicant has contended that due to inadvertence, the date of
the Tribunal's order has been mentioned as 17th April, 2009 instead of
2nd April, 2009.
For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the
petitioners/applicants are permitted to amend the date of the order as
given in the petition, from 17th April, 2009 to 2nd April, 2009.
The application is disposed of.
CM Nos. 13413/11, 9870/10, 9404/09 & WP(C) No. 10577/09
After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners, on
instructions, seeks to withdraw the writ petition in view of the
additional documents filed along with the rejoinder, which were not
before the Tribunal and, therefore, not considered by the Tribunal while
passing the impugned order with liberty to file appropriate
applications/petitions for review of the impugned order in view of the
additional documents in accordance with law, some of which are stated
to have been received by the petitioners pursuant to the queries raised
by them under the Right to Information Act.
In view of the statements made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as
prayed for.
All the pending applications are also disposed of.
However, considering the facts and circumstances, the interim
order granted by this Court dated 11th August, 2009 shall continue and
is extended for a further period of four weeks from today. Thereafter,
the petitioners/applicants shall be at liberty to seek such interim orders
as may be deemed appropriate by the petitioners from the Central
Administrative Tribunal in accordance with law without prejudice to
rights and contentions of the respondents.
Needless to say, the respondents shall be entitled to take such
pleas and contentions as will be available to them in accordance with
law to contest the applications/petitions which will be filed by the
petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Dasti to parties.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011.
'rs'
