AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dilip Gupta, J.
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 351998 of 2010
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, I am satisfied that the applicants/Petitioners were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the application within the period of limitation. The application is, accordingly, allowed.
Civil Misc. Review Application No. 352001 of 2010
Petitioner Nos. 15, 40, 14, 91, 13, 80, 39, 112 and 82 of Writ Petition No. 43543 of 2010 have filed this petition for review of the judgment and order dated 14th September, 2010 by which the writ petition was dismissed for the reasons mentioned in the judgment and order delivered in Writ Petition No. 25016 of 2010.
At the time of filing of the writ petition, an interim order was passed by the Court on 27th July, 2010 which is quoted below:
Connect this writ petition with Writ Petition No. 25016 of 2010.
The Respondents are granted two weeks'' time to file a counter affidavit. Petitioners will have two weeks, thereafter, to file a rejoinder affidavit.
List after expiry of the aforesaid period.
Till the next date of listing, it is provided that the Petitioners shall also be entitled to the protection as has been made available to the Petitioners of Writ Petition No. 25016 of 2010.
Writ Petition No. 25016 of 2010 was heard at length by this Court and by the judgment and order dated 14th September, 2010 it was dismissed. Writ Petition No. 43543 of 2010 was also heard along with Writ Petition No. 25016 of 2010 on 6th September, 2010 and was dismissed on 14th September, 2010 in view of the decision rendered in Writ Petition No. 25016 of 2010.
It is submitted by Sri A.R. Dube, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants that the case of the applicants is entirely different from the rest of the Petitioners inasmuch as the applicants were posted in G.R.P. and were transferred by the order dated 19th July, 2010 without any decision having been taken by the Police Establishment Board.
A perusal of the order dated 19th July, 2010 does not indicate that any decision was taken by the Police Establishment Board but what needs to be emphasised that in paragraph 44 of the writ petition, a statement was made that the transfer order was passed with the approval of the Police Establishment Board but without any application of mind. Learned Counsel for the applicants also at the time the matter was heard on 6th September, 2010 raised the same submissions as were advanced on behalf of the other Petitioners. The Petitioners enjoyed the interim order dated 27th July, 2010 and they were not transferred in accordance with the posting assigned to them by the order dated 19th July, 2010 and it is only after the dismissal of the writ petition on 14th September, 2010 that the Petitioners joined at the transferred places.
Thus, as the Petitioners have taken the benefits of the interim order, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants that the judgment and order dated 14th September, 2010 so far as these applicants are concerned should be reviewed.
The review application is, accordingly, rejected.