Dr. Rajendra P. Mishra v. UOI

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * CM No. 13397/2011 in W.P.(C) No.10577/2009 This is an application seeking correction of a typographical error regarding the date of the order/judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal as given in the writ petition. Issue notice to the non-applicants. 2011:DHC:4724-DB Mr. R.V. Sinha, Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Gagan Mathur, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 accept notice and state that no replies to the application are to be filed. The applicant has contended that due to inadvertence, the date of the Tribunal’s order has been mentioned as 17th April, 2009 instead of 2nd April, 2009. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the petitioners/applicants are permitted to amend the date of the order as given in the petition, from 17th April, 2009 to 2nd April, 2009. The application is disposed of. CM Nos. 13413/11, 9870/10, 9404/09 & WP(C) No. 10577/09 After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, seeks to withdraw the writ petition in view of the additional documents filed along with the rejoinder, which were not before the Tribunal and, therefore, not considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order with liberty to file appropriate applications/petitions for review of the impugned order in view of the additional documents in accordance with law, some of which are stated to have been received by the petitioners pursuant to the queries raised by them under the Right to Information Act. In view of the statements made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. All the pending applications are also disposed of. However, considering the facts and circumstances, the interim order granted by this Court dated 11th August, 2009 shall continue and is extended for a further period of four weeks from today. Thereafter, the petitioners/applicants shall be at liberty to seek such interim orders as may be deemed appropriate by the petitioners from the Central Administrative Tribunal in accordance with law without prejudice to rights and contentions of the respondents. Needless to say, the respondents shall be entitled to take such pleas and contentions as will be available to them in accordance with law to contest the applications/petitions which will be filed by the petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Dasti to parties. ANIL KUMAR, J. SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. SEPTEMBER 15, 2011. ‘rs’