Full Text
,f
$-4 to 6
* IN THE HIGH COURT
+ w.P.(c) 2028/20rr
LINION OF INDIA & ANR
Represented by:
PRAHALAD MEENA
+ Represented by: w.P.(c) 2029/20rr
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mr. v. s .R. I<'i shna.
".:"i*':ffi;
Mr.Abhishek Yadav, Advocate
Mr.A.K.Trivedi, Advocate ..... Petitioners
Mr.V. S.R.Krishna, Advocate with
Mr.Abhishek Yadav, Advocate
{'1
SUML KUMARMEENA w.P.(c) 203r/2011
TINION OF INDIA & ANR
None ..... Petitioners
\[r.V. S.R.Krishna, Advocate with
Mr.Abhishek Yadav. Advocate
VETSUS
RAJENDRA KUMARMEENA ..... Respondent
Representedby: Mr.A.K.Trivedi,Advocate
Page I of 3
2013:DHC:7691-DB t
\l
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
21.10.2013
CM No.12665/2013 in W.P.(C) No.2028l201 1
CM No.12668/2013 in W.P.(C) No.2029l201 1
CM No.1265712013 in W.P.(C) No.203 1/201 1
! For the reasons stated in the applications the same are allowed.
CM No.1266412013 in W.P.(C) No.2028l201 1
?. cvrw.ictNo.zozglzott
CM No.1265612013 in W.P.(C) No.203 1/201 1
Allowed.
Order dated April 17,2013 dismissing the writ petitions in default and for non prosecution is recalled.
W .P .(C\ Nos.2028/201 I. 2029 /2011 & 203 | /201 I. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the issue of territorial jurisdiction was argued before the Bench of the Central Administrative
I Tribunal at Delhi and for which it was argued that the jurisdiction lay with the Central Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore alone. It is further urged that the claimants before the Tribunal had approached the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal which had so oPined.
ORDER
2. However, counsel concedes that said aspect does not find a mention in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
3. We do not know whether the issue ofjurisdiction which was pleaded Page[2] of[3] oh - \ a/ \V tr in the counter reply was ultimately argued before the Tribunal.
4. It is trite that when an issue arises whether a particular point was or was not urged before the Tribunal, the attention has to be drawn at the first instance of the Tribunal to said fact.
5. Accordingly, we permit the petitioners to withdraw the writ petitions with right of the petitioners reserved to file an appropriate application before the Tribunal pointing out to the Tribunal that the issue ofjurisdiction (which was raised in the preliminary objection to the counter reply and was argued) has escaped the attention of the Tribunal while deciding the Original Application(s) filed by the respondent.
6. Granting liberty the writ petitions are dismissed as not pressed.
1. No costs. _\ -1-;t*y'e? PRADEEP NANbhA}OC,T. [r I il'IY v. KAMESWAR RAO, J. ocroBER 2L, 2013,rralrfia F- Page 3 of[3]