Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13395 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Veer Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Vivek Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
1. Heard Sri Pravin Kumar Shukla, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Prakas Veer Tripathi, Advocate, for petitioner and perused the record.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution has been filed assailing the order of Tribunal whereby Review/Recall Application of petitioner has been dismissed by order dated 23.11.2017. It appears that engaging Sri Anil Kumar Singh as Advocate and through him petitioner filed Original Application (hereinafter referred to as “OA”) No. 330/00910 of 2015 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”). Matter was heard by Tribunal on 06.10.2015. It appears that after some argument, when counsel for petitioner did not find the things appropriate, made a statement seeking permission to withdraw the OA and requesting Tribunal to dismiss the OA as withdrawn. The request was accepted by Tribunal and OA was dismissed as withdrawn. Order passed by Tribunal on 06.10.2015 reads as under:
“Heard Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Srhi K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. After argument for some time, counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the instance Original Application.
3. Accordingly, the instance O.A. is dismissed as withdrawn.”
3. After two years, petitioner through another counsel filed a Review/ Recall Application, along with Delay Condonation Application, stating that he had not instructed counsel to get OA dismissed as withdrawn and, therefore, the said order need be recalled and delay in filing application be condoned. Both these applications have been rejected by Tribunal vide order dated 23.11.2017.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner. when pointed out that it is mentioned in Vakalat-nama that whatever is done by the counsel shall be binding on the person who has executed Vakalat-nama, he could give no reply. Moreover, application was filed by another counsel and not by the same counsel.
5. In the entirety of facts and circumstances, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the order passed by Tribunal rejecting Miscellaneous Applications of petitioner, so as to warrant interference.
6. The writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018 PS