Dr.Subhash D. Khandagale v. Shikshan Prasarak & Ors.
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. At this stage, the Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Court must award reasonable costs to the respondents as the Officers of the respondent were made to wait in Court to attend the proceedings on 2.3.2012, who had arrived from Pune. In our…
Judgment
Mr.Manoj Nayak for the Applicant Mr.S.R. Nargolkar I/b Aumkar Joshi for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED: MARCH 16, 2012 P.C.:
#1. Heard Counsel for the parties. This application is for recalling the order dated 2.3.2012 dismissing the petition for non- prosecution. On that date, none appeared for the petitioner. In the application, it is stated that the advocate for the petitioner who was delayed because of traffic jam on express highway, was late only by 10 minutes. This affidavit is resisted by the respondents by reiterating the reasons stated on the earlier occasion before the Court on 2.3.2012 that the petition has become infructuous and no fruitful purpose would be served in restoring the writ petition. 1 of 3 caw.585.2012.sxw
#2. We agree with both these submissions advanced by the respondent. In the writ petition, it was prayed that the letter purported to be suspension order dated 23.6.2011 be quashed and set aside. Further relief sought was for quashing of the enquiry initiated by respondent No.1 on the ground that it is without following due procedure of law. On the earlier occasion also, the respondents brought to our notice that the enquiry was completed and the enquiry officer was in the process of submitting his report to the appropriate authority. The reply affidavit mentions that the said report has been duly submitted to the appropriate authority who will now take decision as may be advised and warranted in the fact situation. The Counsel for the applicant submits that the report of the enquiry officer has now been served on the petitioner for which reason the petitioner be permitted to amend the writ petition to ask for further relief after restoration of the writ petition.
#3. As aforesaid, we are not inclined to restore the writ petition. Secondly, if the enquiry is complete, the relief as claimed in the writ petition is worked out. The petitioner will be free to challenge the final decision of the appropriate authority, if so advised, on grounds 2 of 3 caw.585.2012.sxw as may be permissible in law. All questions raised in this writ petition can be considered in those proceedings. The question of permitting the petitioner to amend this petition does not arise as the challenge will be to independent substantive order passed by the appropriate authority which will be a separate cause of action.
#4. Accordingly, this application is rejected with the aforesaid observations.
#5. At this stage, the Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Court must award reasonable costs to the respondents as the Officers of the respondent were made to wait in Court to attend the proceedings on 2.3.2012, who had arrived from Pune. In our opinion, in the peculiar facts of the present case, we may not think it appropriate to impose costs on the applicant. That request is rejected. (R.G. KETKAR, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J.) 3 of 3
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.