Madhya Pradesh Road Development ... vs M/S Vindhyachal Expressway Pvt. Ltd.
2024 Latest Caselaw 16026 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Madhya Pradesh Road Development ... vs M/S Vindhyachal Expressway Pvt. Ltd. on 29 May, 2024

                                                               1
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                         AA No. 308 of 2023
                            (MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS Vs M/S VINDHYACHAL
                                                         EXPRESSWAY PVT. LTD.)

                           Dated : 29-05-2024
                                    Shri Prashant Singh - Senior Advocate with Shri Anvesh Shrivastava

                           and Shri Manoj Munshi - Advocate for the appellants.
                                    Shri Amit S. Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Ranjit Kumar -
                           Senior Advocate connected through Video Conferencing with Shri Akshay
                           Sapre - Advocate for the respondents.

During the course of hearing, this Court came across Rule-13, Chapter - 4 of The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 (for brevity, 'Rules, 2008'), providing that an application for review, clarification or modification of a judgment, decree or final order, passed by a Judge or Judges who or one or more of whom is or are permanently unavailable then it shall be heard by the Bench of which one of the constituted members of the Division Bench is a party.

The judgment under review was passed by a Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul (as the then he was) and Hon'ble Shri Justice

Vivek Jain. Earlier, the application for review/modification was listed before a Division Bench in which Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Jain was a member. With the change in roster now, the matter has been placed before this Court in view of mentioning memo. This fact was specifically mentioned in the mentioning memo, but the matter is ordered to be listed before this Court in view of the roster position, without clarifying the implication of Rule-13, Chapter - 4 of the Rules, 2008.

In view of the aforesaid legal position, Registry is directed to have a fresh order, clarifying as to whether the matter is to be heard by the present Division Bench as per the roster or by a special Bench in which Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Jain shall be the member in compliance of the requirement of Rule-13, Chapter - 4 of the Rules, 2008.

Let the needful be done within a week.

                              (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)                               (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
                                    JUDGE                                              JUDGE

                           Priya.P