CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2018 › Vinod v. Collector and Chairman District Selection Committee

Vinod v. Collector and Chairman District Selection Committee Chandrapur

Supreme Court of India · 28 March 2018

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
28 March 2018
Case no.
C.A. No. 3352 of 2018
Bench
Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Navin Sinha
Author
Kurian Joseph
Length
3 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3352/2018
(ARISING FROM SLP (C) NO. 7492/2018)

VINOD APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT SELECTION
COMMITTEE, CHANDRAPUR & ORS.
RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. In the nature of order we propose to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents since the interest of the respondents is not otherwise affected.

3. The appellant has been non-suited by the High Court on the ground that the second writ petition filed is not maintainable, having withdrawn earlier writ petition without any leave.

4. The order dated 28.07.2016 passed in the earlier Writ Petition No.2748/2016 reads as follows:-

“Shri V.A. Dhabe, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the Writ Petition.
Permission is granted. The Writ Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.”

5. It is fairly clear that the petition was withdrawn only on account of the pendency of the appeal. Apparently, that is why the High Court has, in fact, not dismissed the petition; it has only disposed it of.

6. In the second writ petition leading to the impugned judgment, there is a specific prayer, which reads as follows:-

“(iii) quash and set aside the communication dated 3.9.2016 at Annexure-10 issued by respondent No.5 being violative of principles of natural justice and bad in law;”

7. It appears that the prayer challenging the subsequent order passed in appeal was not brought to the notice of the High Court.

8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition certainly is maintainable. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment with a request to the High Court to consider Writ Petition No.484/2017 on merits.

9. We make it clear that we have not considered the merits of the matter.

10. The appellant is also directed to serve a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this petition/appeal to the respondents.

11. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

13. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.........................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH] .........................J. [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]

.........................J. [NAVIN SINHA] NEW DELHI; MARCH 28, 2018.

Ask CaseMinister about Vinod v. Collector and Chairman District Selection Committee Chandrapur

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp