The Director (RL) v. Satyaprakash

1. Mr.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners states that he has obtained instrucdohs from the department to the effect that instead,of pressing the present petitions on nierits, the. department propose to file, a review petition before the Tribunal for seeking review of the common irhpugned judgment dated 23.07.2018 passed in the four connected Original Applications that were filed by the > respondents before the Tribunal. ■ •. - W.P.(C) 10235/2018 & connectedmatters page1of[2]. V 2018:DHC:8650-DB '2.: Learned counsel for the respondents states that apart from the four OAsthat have been decided by the impugnedjudgment,one OA filed by some third party for the same,relief is pending before the Tribunal and on the last date fixed in the said OA,instead ofarguing the matter on merits, counsel for the Union of India (respondents' before the Tribunal) ha:d sought an adjournment on the ground that the present petitions arebeing filed before the High Courtto assailthe judgment dated 23.07.2018. He states that in view of the said position, the Tribunal had adjourned the pending OA to a,date in January,2019. -

3. It is made clear that the mere pendency ofthe OA on the same issue as raised in OA,Nos.2455/2018,.2456/2018, 2457/2018 and 2458/2018 decided by the impugned judgment will not be a ground forthe Tribunalto examine the pleas proposed to be taken by the petitioners in the review application that shall be filed before the Tribunal. The saidreview application shall be decided asperlaw.

4. Needless to say that ifthe Tribunal decides to entertain such a review application, then the respondents in these petitions shall,be entitled to take all the pleas that may be available to them to oppose the review application.. '

5. The petitions are disposed of,along with the pending applications with liberty grantedtothe petitioners as prayed for.' HIMA KQHLI,J REKH4^<^LI,J