Lalan Choubey vs Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh and Others

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant in SLP before Supreme Court has challenged the order dated 13.06.2011 passed by this Court whereby this Court has clarified that this Court has not stayed the hearing of the review petition pending before Single Bench in which the Respondent was granted interim order and this Court has only stayed the operation of stay granted by Single Bench.

It will be relevant to mention here that the Appellant preferred this L.P.A. against the interim order dated 13.5.2011 passed in review petition by Single Bench and an ex-parte stay order was granted in this L.P.A. on 20.05.2011 only against the interim order as Appellant was aggrieved against the grant of interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in review petition.

On 13.06.2011, a clarification was sought and this Court clarified that by interim order of this Court dated 20.05.2011, this Court neither intended nor stayed the hearing of the review petition and hearing of the review petition was not sought to be stayed even by the Appellant. Therefore, the learned Single Judge may proceed to decide the review petition.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant pointed out that in the L.P.A. it has been prayed that "during the pendency of the appeal, the further proceedings including the order dated 13.05.2011passed in Civil Review Petition No. 109/2010 by the Hon''ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar may be stayed."

However, as already we have noticed in the order dated 20.05.2011 that the Appellant sought stay against the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge and did not prayed for the stay against the hearing of the review petition and again it was made clear vide order dated 13.06.2011 after hearing the learned Counsel for the Appellant the order was passed in presence of counsels for the parties that stay against the fixing of the hearing of the review petition was not prayed by the Appellant.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that he has not filed any review petition before this Court to challenge the fact recorded in the order dated 13.06.2011 that no prayer for stay of the review petition was made before this Court on 20.05.2011 and he has straightway preferred SLP before the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

The fact reveals that the Petitioner after obtaining the interim order dated 20.05.2011, on 13.06.2011 before the Bench did not objected to hearing of the review petition by the learned Single Judge and in his presence the order dated 13.05.2011 was clarified for the obvious reason that the order dated 13.05.2011 was not only interim order but also by this order the learned Single Judge fixed the date of hearing of the review petition itself.

Now since the Appellant has got the stay order on 20.05.2011, staying the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge is objecting to hearing of the review petition which may bring an end to the dispute raised in the review petition and also is seeking adjournment in this L.P.A. on the pretext that he has preferred SLP before the Hon''ble Supreme Court and that matter is

pending before the Supreme Court and therefore, this Court may not hear L.P.A. Therefore, the Petitioner is not interested in hearing of L.P.A. nor the review petition by Single Bench as he got interim order in his favour.

Learned Counsel appearing for the original writ Petitioner submitted that as per his information which he gathered from the ''Internet'' from the site of the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the SLP preferred by the Appellant is lying in the defects side.

10.We are of the view that the Appellant is preventing hearing of the L.P.A. and the review petition both inspite of the fact that neither there is a stay order by this Court nor there is a stay order by the Hon''ble Supreme Court against hearing of the L.P.A. in the Appellant''s SLP But since the impugned order was passed on 13.05.2011 and there was vacation in the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the Hon''ble Supreme Court re-opened today only, therefore, we are granting time to the Appellant either to obtain the stay order or to argue the L.P.A. on 14th July, 2011 as the date is suggested by the learned Counsel for the Appellant.