AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. A. Khandeparkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Talaulikar, Advocate for the respondent no. 1.
During the course of the hearing of the above Petition, Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner points out that the above petition may be conveniently disposed of based on the terms in the companion Petition bearing Writ Petition No. 171 of 2016 disposed of by Judgment dated 03.05.2017.
It is not disputed by the learned Counsel that the matters being examined by the Adjudicator in terms of the said Judgment dated 03.05.2017 would cover the allegations made by the Petitioner in the above Writ Petition. It is also not in dispute that the challenge in the above Petition is also to the catalogue which was the subject matter of the Writ Petition bearing No. 171 of 2016. Considering the similarity of the disputes in both the above Petitions we find that the above Petition can be disposed of in terms of the Judgment and the Minutes of Order dated 03.05.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 171 of 2016.
Mr. Khandeparkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner further points out that the Adjudicator should consider the matter in terms of the said Judgment and not travel beyond the directions issued therein and clarification to that effect be issued in the present petition. We are not inclined to grant any clarification on that aspect and the Petitioner, if so advised, may raise such contention before the Adjudicator who shall decide such contention in accordance with law
Subject to above, the Petition stands disposed of in terms of the Judgment dated 03.05.2017 and the Minutes of Order therein marked as Annexure ''X'' for identification. Rule stands disposed of, accordingly.