Md. Hayath Udin vs Union of India & Ors

This application is third time for same relief. It seeks execution of order dated 20.10.2020 in Appeal No. 20/2018, Md. Hayath Udin vs. Union of India & Ors. passed by this Tribunal.

The first such application was MA. No. 31/2021 in OA No. 204/2020, Thummanapally Srinivas & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. for same relief which was dismissed with following observations:

“xxx ……………………………………xxx………………………….xxx

The grievance now put forward is that the directions are not being complied. The applicant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court but the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was allowed to be withdrawn, without prejudice to other remedies.

In view of the fact that the Tribunal has already adjudicated upon the matter and issued consequential directions, we do not find any ground to issue repeat directions.

The application is accordingly disposed of without prejudice to the remedy of the applicant to approach the MoEF&CC for compliance of directions of this Tribunal already issued.”

Thereafter,  second  application  for  relief,  without  disclosing  the above development, was OA No. 35/2022(SZ), Gangadhara Surender Telangana and Ors. vs. Union of India, Rep by its Secretary, New Delhi and Ors. which was dismissed on 11.04.2022 as follows:

“xxx …………………………………….xxx……………………….xxx

We have heard learned Counsel for the applicant. We asked him how OA is maintainable for execution and why remedy of execution available before the PB has not been taken. His only answer is that the present applicant is different from the appellant in the main case.

We find from the record that infact the same issue of execution was raised before the PB through the same learned Counsel by way of MA31/2021 and was dealt with by the PB vide order dated 12.4.2021 as follows:

“ …… The grievance now put forward is that the directions are not being complied. The applicant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court but the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was allowed to be withdrawn, without prejudice to other remedies.

In view of the fact that the Tribunal has already adjudicated upon the matter and issued consequential directions, we do not find any ground to issue repeat directions.”

The above fact has not been disclosed in the present proceedings though material and known to learned Counsel, which is not fair to the Tribunal. Further, taking up of the same issue before different Bench may result in contradictory order which is not a desirable situation. If earlier proceeding was disclosed or application filed before PB, the same may have been dealt with differently from the manner it has been dealt with in absence of complete information resulting in unnecessary waste of time of this Tribunal. We are thus inclined to burden the applicant with cost but since prayer is made to withdraw the application, the same is dismissed as withdrawn, recording disapproval for the conduct of the applicant.”

We thus find that repeated applications for same relief are nothing but abuse of court’s process. This application cannot be entertained and is dismissed.

M.A. No. 34/2022 will also stand disposed of.