- (1.) This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4 May 2018 of a learned Judge of this Court by which Writ-A No.14609 of 2004 that had been filed for not only quashing the order dated 18 March 2004 passed by the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika Parishad as also the Government Order dated 27 February 2004 but, inter alia, for a direction upon the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue on his post as Safai Nayak and also to pay him salary regularly in accordance with law, has been dismissed. The judgment is reproduced below:- "1. Called in revise. None appeared on behalf of petitioner. Though name of counsel for petitioner is similar to me but I perused the record and find that counsel for petitioner is different one. 2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.3.2004 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure-11) and order (GO) passed by O.P. No. 1 dated 27.2.2004 be also quashed attach with supplementary affidavit. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue on his post as Safai Nayak and to pay him salary regularly in accordance with law. 3. However, I have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that petitioner is not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for. 4. Moreover, it appears that either the cause of action no more survives or that petitioner has lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits and that is why, counsel for petitioner is absent. 5. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 6. Sri C.K. Parekh, Advocate is present for respondents."
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has submitted that the counsel for the petitioner could not appear before the learned Judge. It is also submitted that cause of action still survives but as the matter has been decided on merits, a recall application cannot be filed.
(3.) In the absence of counsel for the petitioner-appellant, the learned Judge has, after reading the pleadings, found that the petitioner-appellant has not been able to make out a case for the Court to interfere. The learned Judge has also observed that the matter may have been rendered infructuous as counsel for the petitioner-appellant has not appeared. The learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has stated that he could not appear before the Court.;