CHAMAN LAL SARAF Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2014-12-5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on December 03,2014

Chaman Lal Saraf Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

INDRESH KUMAR VS. RAM PHAL [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

NISAR AHAMED VS. S. LEELA [LAWS(MAD)-2015-10-217] [REFERRED TO]
INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS VS. ABHIJEET BAIDYA [LAWS(CAL)-2019-9-177] [REFERRED TO]
BIRANCHI NARAYAN KHUNTIA VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2020-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
MD. ABDUL GHANI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2019-9-209] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The present Crl. M.P. No. 10148 of 2013 in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2238 of 1995 has been filed by the applicant on 03.04.2013 seeking clarification of the order dated 03.11.2003 passed by this Court in Crl. M.P. No. 8421 of 2003 in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2238 of 1995, vide which the said Misc. Petition was dismissed with costs and this Court did not grant permission to reinstate the applicant Ramphal.
(2.)The present application has been filed in pursuance of the order dated 14.3.2013 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29555 of 2011, which is as under:-
"In the face of the directions issued by this Court in order, dated 3rd November, 2003, passed in Crl.M.P. No.8421 of 2003 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2238 of 1995, which also takes notice of the order passed by this Court on 14th February, 2001, in Crl.M.P. Nos. 5767 & 5768 of 2000 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2238 of 1995, we are of the opinion that the learned single judge as well as the Division bench were understandably constrained not to decide Civil Writ Petition No.6675 of 1996 on merits. However, we can also visualize the plight of the petitioner as it prima facie appears that when the orders were passed by this Court on 14th February, 2001 and 3rd November, 2003, the petitioner was neither a party nor was he heard.

In view of the aforesaid observations, Mr. Ashok Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, makes a prayer for adjournment to enable his client to move an appropriate application. Let such application, if any, be filed within two weeks."

(3.)The relevant facts, necessary to decide the present application, are as under:-


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.