WPSS/2611/2015
2022 Latest Caselaw 2210 UK

                     Office Notes, reports,
SL.                orders or proceedings or
          Date                                                 COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                 directions and Registrar's
                     order with Signatures


      21.07.2022
                                                WPSS No. 2611 of 2015
                                                Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Harendra Belwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sushil Vashisth, Standing Counsel, for the State.

Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate, for Uttarakhand Cooperative Federation.

Mr. Shobhit Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6/U.P. Cooperative Federation.

Based on the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, admittedly in para 15 of the writ petition, while referring

of 2006, Bhuwan Chandra Sharma and others Vs. U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd and another, this writ petition was disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 21.03.2017, with the bunch of writ petitions, on the basis of a consensus extended by the counsels appearing for the respective parties. Hence, apparently the order dated 21.03.2017, is an order which was passed with the consent.

Alleging its non-compliance, the applicant to the Modification Application (MCC/679/2020), had filed a contempt petition being CLCON No. 483 of 2013, which was decided on 09.10.2020, with liberty left open for the petitioner to file an appropriate clarification application, for which he had sought two weeks' time.

There are two reasons not to accept the modification application, at this belated stage. One, the order sought to be modified was a consenting order, and secondly, the order passed in the contempt proceedings cannot be a foundation for the purposes of filing a clarification application, and that too beyond the permitted prescribed period provided by the order dated 09.10.2020, coupled with the fact that even if the liberty of 09.10.2020, is taken into consideration, then too filing of a modification application would not be tenable to modify a consenting order.

Thus the modification application is misconceived. The same is accordingly rejected.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 21.07.2022 Mahinder/