AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No.949 of 2021
This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present writ appeal against the order dated 1st August, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No.13177 of 2019.
It is pointed out by Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant that the present Appellant interpreted the impugned order to mean that the case of the Respondent for regularization has to be considered and not that orders of regularization had to in fact be passed. However it is only after an order dated 8th April, 2021 of the learned Single Judge was passed in CONTC No.2167/2020 that it became clear that according to the learned Single Judge, the requirement was not merely to dispose of the representation, which came to be rejected by the office order dated 18th April, 2020, but that there actually had to be an order of regularization. It is only thereafter that the present appeal was filed on 22nd April, 2021, i.e. within two weeks thereafter.
Mr. A.K. Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 referred to the objection filed to the present application by pointing out that there are no cogent and good reasons for condoning the delay.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that a reasonable explanation has been offered by the Appellant for the delay in filing the present appeal. It appears to be for bonafide reasons. Considering that the present appeal has been filed within two weeks of the order dated 8th April, 2021 in CONTC No.2167/2020, the Court is of the view that the delay ought to be condoned.
The application is accordingly allowed.
W.A. No.376 of 2021
The impugned order of the learned Single Judge appears to have been passed on the very first day of the hearing of the writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No.13177 of 2019 without any opportunity to the present Appellant to file an affidavit in response to the above mentioned writ petition. The impugned order proceeds on the basis that the principles settled in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. V. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 would be squarely applied to the case of the Respondent No.1.
It is pointed out Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant that without there being the parawise reply to each of the writ petition it would not have been possible for the present Appellant to place before the learned Single Judge facts to show whether or not the case of the Respondent No.1 stood covered by the aforementioned decision or not.
It does appear to the Court, and this has not been able to be disputed by Mr. Panigrahi appearing for Respondent No.1 that the writ petition was disposed of on the very first day of its listing without any opportunity to the present Appellant to file a counter affidavit.
On this short ground, the impugned order dated 1st August, 2019 of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. The Writ Petition (Civil) No.13177 of 2019 is revived before the Roster Bench of the learned Single Judge for a fresh decision on merits. The said writ petition shall now be listed before the learned Single Judge on 6th December, 2021. The present Appellant will file its parawise reply to the writ petition on or before 22nd November, 2021 and the Respondent No.1 herein (i.e. the writ Petitioner) will file rejoinder, if any, thereto on or before 1st December, 2021. It is made clear that no further time for the aforementioned purposes will be granted to either of the parties.
The learned Single Judge will then proceed with the hearing of the writ petition on merits and endeavour to dispose it of in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter.
The writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
................................