The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ashok Kumar Saxena
2021 Latest Caselaw 9111 MP

                                                                        1                               WA-1720-2019
                                         THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH,
                                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                                  (DIVISION BENCH)
                                                                 WA No. 1720 of 2019

                                     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS                             .....Appellant
                                                                Versus
                                     ASHOK KUMAR SAXENA                                             .....Respondents

                                     Coram :
                                                 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice
                                                 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
                                     Presence
                                     :
                                                 Shri B.D. Singh, Government Advocate for the appellants.
                                                 None for the respondent.
                                                                     ORDER (Oral)

(22-12-2021) Per: Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice Shri B.D. Singh, Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and liable to be interfered. That the question of the petitioner's case being covered by the judgment of A.L. Thakur may not be correct. A.L. Thakur's case was with reference to the Time Keeper whereas the writ petitioner herein was

Progress Man. Even though the writ appeal filed in the case of A.L. Thakur was dismissed and so also was the SLP.

The fact remains that various other petitions pertaining to the very same matter are still pending consideration before the review court. That subsequent to the order passed by the appellate court matters were directed to be reconsidered by the learned Single Judge and thereafter the review petitions were filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, these were the facts that which were probably not within the knowledge of the learned Government Advocate who appeared before the writ Court. Therefore, in view of the difference in facts as well as the application of law, the matter requires to be considered.

Learned counsel for the respondent is not present. Signature Not Verified SAN

On hearing learned counsel, we are of the view that appropriate Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 2021.12.23 12:05:16 IST 2 WA-1720-2019 interference is called for. Considering the judgment in the case A.L. Thakur as well as the impugned order herein, it may not be right to hold that the matter is completely covered in the judgment of A.L. Thakur's case. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks to differentiate the said judgement with the facts involved herein. Therefore, this requires to be considered. It is rather

unfortunate that the distinction between the petitioner and A.L. Thakur was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Hence, the writ appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 13.8.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.14178 of 2019 is set aside. WP No.14178 of 2019 is restored to its file and to be heard on merit.

                                           (RAVI MALIMATH)                    (RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
                                             CHIEF JUSTICE                                JUDGE

                                     SKM




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY
Date: 2021.12.23 12:05:16 IST