The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus, by setting aside the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A No. The Tribunal had dismissed these applications in view of having allowed the review petitions and set aside its earlier order in T.A No. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In other words the direction of this Bench that the cases of applicants of O.A No. The case of the applicants in these O.As is similar to that of the O.A No. Paragraph 8 of the judgment is being reproduced below at page 1875 (of AIR):—, “The power of review which is granted to an Administrative Tribunal is similar to power given to a Civil Court under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ORDER D.V. Hence the controversy whether the Voluntary Ticket Collectors are entitled to the benefit of the instructions issued by the Railway Board in their letter dated 6-2-1990 is available to the Voluntary Ticket Collectors or not, stands settled in the aforesaid case. In effect, amounts to declining to entertain an appeal, thus making the judgment and order appealed against final and binding. The legal position cannot be said to be different in respect of this writ petition seeking judicial review from this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. ORDER IN PENDING CASE . 37 of 1997 and the connected review applications. In Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust v. Swami Prakasananda, 1997 (5) JT (SC) 100 : (1997) 6 SCC 78 the above decision was reaffirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that against the order of the Tribunal a review application is maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 22(3)(f) of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ read with Rule 17 of Administrative Tribunal (Procedue) Rules, 1987. provisions contained in Section 22(3)(f) of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as Act read with Rule 17 of Administrative Tribunal (Procedue) Rules, 1987. … Review Applications and the order sought to be reviewed and we find that neither any error apparent on the face of the record has been shown nor it has been brought to our notice that material facts having bearing on the merit of the case, could not be brought out with exercise of due deligence at the time order was passed, have subsequently been discovered, warranting review of the order. These applications therefore, will abide by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal referred to above. provisions of Section 22(3)(f) and Rule 17, Civil Misc Writ Petition No. Paragraph No. Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. 1642 of 1994 and ten other cases with direction to respondents, is to consider the claim of applicants and to give same benefit which is available to the other candidates under the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27 July, 1995 in civil appeal arising out of S.L.P (C) Nos. at the earliest and in case, even for any unavoidable reason, the application for vacating stay order is not decided the stay order shall stand vacated, by operation of law." Seeking Stay should be last the resort effort. The appeals are disposed of with the directions given in the case of Usha Kumari Anand. The order of the Tribunal under appeal is, accordingly, set aside. 479 of 1993. The said bench dismissed the O.As and held that voluntary/Mobile Ticket Collectors and Mobile Booking Clerks are two different cadres and the instructions issued by the Railway Board by letter dated 6-2-1990 are applicable to the category of Mobile Booking Clerks only. V. WI STATE LEGISLATURE , ET AL. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that writ petitions against the order of the Central-Administrative Tribunal have been held to be maintainable in respect of those orders which have been passed after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 : (AIR 1997 SC 1125). No. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order whereby the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A No. 14756-61 of 1993, 11631 of 1994 and 20114 of 1993. There will be no order as to costs.”. 4. Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. We have thoroughly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties about the maintainability of the writ petition. 47270 of 2003 and C.M.W.P No. So far as the order dated 4 November, 1996 is concerned it cannot be disputed that the writ petition is not legally maintainable. Now coming to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the controversy as to whether Voluntary Ticket Collectors and Mobile Booking Clerks were entitled for the benefit of the Circular of Railway dated 6-2-1990 stands settled under the judgment dated 27 July, 1995 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Order of tribunal rejecting the O.As was also set aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Every application for stay of recovery of demand of tax, interest, penalty, fine, Estate Duty or any other sum shall be presented in Triplicate by the applicant in person, or by his duly authorised agent, or sent by Registered Post to the Registrar/Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar, as the case may be at the Headquarters of a Bench or Benches having jurisdiction to hear the appeals in respect of which the Stay Application … The Tribunal in paragraph No. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable. 20A64 SWENSON, JILL, ET AL. Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment in the aforesaid civil appeal set aside the order passed by bench of the Tribunal in O.A No. 2. In such circur/istances, as the controversy stood concluded by order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the review petition was not legally maintainable though technically it can be said that as no S.I.P was filed against order dated 4, November, 1996, the review is maintainable but the maintainability of the review petition has to be judged as to whether the Tribunal was in a position to review its order which was passed following the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reversed the above finding by setting aside the order of the Tribunal. We do not find any substantial difference in the present case. The Court said that the exercise of power of review by the Tribunal in such circumstances would be “deleterious to judicial discipline”. The Tribunal while rejecting the review application filed by petitioners has taken into consideration this aspect of the matter, in paragraph 4 of the order which reads as under:—, “Some of the Mobile Ticket Collectors, whose services were similarly dispensed with, filed a number of cases. You have to move the same bench of the High Court to vacate the stay. 479 of 1993 has been set aside has held that the appeals are disposed of with the direction given in the case of Usha Kumari Anand and the respondents were directed to examine the case of the appellants in accordance with the directions contained in paras 37 and 38 of the Tribunal's judgment in that matter. “O.A No. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection questioning the maintainability of the writ petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 479 of 1993 challenged the decision in the aforesaid case by filing Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. change. 20A102 BARR, ATT’Y GEN., ET AL. 8 gave reasons for accepting the claim of the applicant, which reads as under:—. 1. Application, are in pari materia with the case of Shiv Shanker allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While determining whether a … 10. There shall be no order as to costs.”, 7. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. It has also been submitted that the order rejecting review application does not suffer from any error of law. Non-applicant has filed an application for vacating stay order and it has been stated by him that applicant is an educated and smart lady and she used to travel all alone before her marriage. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. We, therefore, by order under review held that their cases will abide by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal of the said Shiv Shanker. 1 of 1989 to this Court, and the special leave petition was rejected. Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The application to … The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reversed the above finding by setting aside the order of the Tribunal. The Court followed the earlier judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle (supra).”, 6. To maintain the sanctity of judicial proceedings, we have invoked the doctrine of prospective overruling so as not to disturb the procedure in relation to decisions already rendered.”. Recovery of public … 1642 of 1994 and other connected O.As in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”. Respondents have put in appearance and filed counter-affidavit along with an application for vacating stay order. In these circumstances, in our opinion, in the facts of the present case the preliminary objection deserves to be accepted and the writ petition is liable to be rejected as not maintainable. Shri Shiv Shanker, the applicant of O.A No. The order reads as under:—, Learned counsel state that the matters are covered by the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. contains alphabet), Union Of India And Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal And Another. Once the Supreme Court has confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal, that becomes final. ĞÏࡱá > şÿ – ˜ şÿÿÿ ” • ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á ` ğ¿ ™V bjbjæ‡æ‡ . It creates an obligation on the part of Court to hear such applications at the earliest and in case, even for any unavoidable reason, the application for vacating stay order is not decided the stay order shall stand vacated, by operation of law." Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above The petitioners, in fact, are seeking fresh judgment on merit which is not permissible within the scope of review.”, 9. * Enter a valid Journal (must Tribunal dismissed these O.As following its order passed on the review application. Therefore, there is nothing more for this Tribunal to adjudicate in these applications. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. In the case before Hon'ble Supreme Court special leave petition to file an appeal was preferred from the judgment of the Tribunal, which was rejected. 12. The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters. Stay Vacation Appln. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle, 1996 (3) JT (SC) 567 : (1996) 3 SCC 463 : (AIR 1996 SC 3069) this Court held that when a special leave petition from the order of the Tribunal was dismissed by a non-speaking order, the main order was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Thereafter the power of review cannot be exercised by the Tribunal. Respondents have put in appearance and filed counter-affidavit along with an application for vacating stay order. An appeal lies to this Court from a decision of the Administrative Tribunal. If an appeal is preferred, the power to review cannot be exercised. I have the following defenses to the eviction civil complaint for damages 7529 of 2003 83 of 1993), Special Leave Petitions were filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court which were numbered as 9606-9608, 16443-51, 17005-17017, 17148-17164, 17224-17230 and 18608 of 11995. „í „í ™N ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ¤ J J J J J J J ^ æ. Therefore, any person (inter alia) who considers himself aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred can apply for review under Order 47, Rule 1(1)(a). ACT 12] Land Revenue 435 21. • FORM #1 [Order to Show Cause (Vacate Judgment/Order)] An Order to Show Cause is used to schedule a court date so a judge or commissioner will hear your Motion To Vacate. If an appeal is preferred, the power to review cannot be exercised. Civil Misc. An appeal lies to this Court from a decision of the Administrative Tribunal. SC 5/01 MOTION FOR ORDER VACATING DEFAULT Short Title Case Number I was unable to come to the court because of the following medical emergency : Other: 9. All these Special Leave Petitions were decided by order dated 19 February, 1996 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Court cannot take a different view on the controversy which has already been settled by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. The applicants of the all these original Applications are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above. We, therefore, find no merit in the review application No. 83 of 1993 was heard and disposed of by a bench of this Tribunal comprising Hon'ble Vice-Chairman and Hon'ble Mr. K. Muthukumar, Administrative Member. Reliance has also been placed in Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sakal Singh v. Smt. 479 of 1993 and by issuing a direction to the respondents to examine the case of the applicants in accordance with the directions contained in paras 37 and 38 of Usha Kumari Anand's case put a stamp of approval to the law laid down in Samir Kumari Mukherjee's case. Writ Petition by persons who claim to be in unauthorised possession and cultivation of certain extents of land in Sy. The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. In the present case, a special leave petition to file an appeal was preferred from the judgment of the Tribunal in T.A No. 1 of 1989. It has been submitted that admission of a review application only means that the Court is satisfied about the merit of the applications but still after hearing both the parties the Court may reject the review application. After noticing the aforesaid legal position, the review petition has been rejected by the following observations: “We have perused the Misc. Learned counsel has further submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable against the main order dated 4 November, 1996 against which only an appeal can be filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court, hence it is riot open to petitioners to challenge the same order on basis of order dated 27 April, 1997 rejecting the review application. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection questioning the maintainability of the writ petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is only when the review application is allowed that the original proceeding is reopened then it could be said that the judgment is put to jeopardy. Seals. This Court held that after an order of this Court dismissing the S.L.P in limine from a judgment of the High Court, the High Court cannot review it. Don’t rush for stay before trying other legal possibilities. Shylendra Kumar, J. 3. Reliance has been placed in paragraph 94 of the aforesaid judgment which reads as under at page 1155 (of AIR):—, “The directions issued by us in respect of making the decisions of Tribunals amenable to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts will, however, come into effect prospectively i.e will apply to decisions rendered hereafter. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. It is submitted that the judgment in L. Chandra Kumar's case (supra) was given on 18 March, 1997. It has been submitted that as petitioners have statutory right to file a review application under the provisions of the Act and the Rules which has been decided after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18 March, 1997 in L. Chandra Kumar's case (supra), this writ petition is legally maintainable. From perusal of the provisions contained in CI, (f) of Section 22(3) of the Act read with Rule 17 of the Rules, there is no doubt that the review application filed by petitioners was maintainable before the Tribunal. 01319032019.pdf - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. The respondents are directed to examine the case of the appellant in accordance with the directions contained in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the Tribunal's judgment in that matter. 4102 of 1998, R.R.K Trivedi, J.:— Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad by order dated 4th November, 1996 accepted the claim of the applicants in O.A No. 1 of 1989 became final and binding. (ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.) THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2020 . Devi, reported in AIR 1979 All 274. 479 of 1993 is one of the cases which has been dismissed by a bench of this Tribunal wherein it has been held that the Mobile Booking Clerks and the Voluntary Ticket Collectors belong to two different categories and that the benefit of Railway Board's circular dated 6-2-1990 is available to Mobile Booking Clerks only and that Voluntary Ticket Collectors are not entitled to the benefit of the same. 23. Demands for money, papers, etc., in the hands of a Revenue Officer or other person. Against the order of the Tribunal deciding bunch of 73 cases (leading case of which was O.A No. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this In case of Shri Gopabandhu Biswal (supra) at the time review application was filed, three fresh O.As were also filed claiming benefit of the judgment of Tribunal which had become final on rejecting of Special Leave Petition by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Once a special leave petition is filed and rejected, the party cannot go back to the Tribunal to apply for review. Petitioners, if were aggrieved by order dated 4 November, 1996, instead of filing review, they should have filed an appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court. A4 SCC 465 this Court has held that if an application for vacation of stay order is pending for vacating the interim order, the contempt petition filed by the applicant under the Contempt of Courts Act for non compliance of interim order in respect to interim order is maintainable. 5. (ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.) MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2020 . In this writ petition, notices were issued to the respondents by order dated 9-2-98 and the implementation of the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal impugned in this writ petition was directed to be kept in abeyance till the next date of listing. Sachhidanand Dass and another, (1995) Sup. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sri Gopalbandhu Biswal v. Krishna Chandra Mohanty, reported in 1998 (3) JT (SC) 279 : ((1998) 4 SCC 447 : AIR 1998 SC 1872) after considering the provisions of Section 22(3)(f) and Rule 17 has held that power of review which is granted to an Administrative Tribunal is similar to power given to a Civil Court under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15 of the judgment is reproduced below at page 1877 (of AIR 198):—, “The Tribunal also had before it, three other applications which were filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. As a result the order of the Tribunal became final and binding. V. HALL, ORLANDO . ( leading case of Usha Kumari Anand thoroughly considered the submissions of the in., independent learners and the special leave petition "application for vacating stay order", accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable lawyers prospective. To adjudicate in these applications therefore, obligates the respondents to examine the of... And 20114 of 1993, 11631 of 1994 and other connected O.As in the aforesaid two orders writ. Trying other legal possibilities rejecting the O.As was also set aside by Hon'ble Supreme in... Submitted that the exercise of power of review by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rush for stay before other! 1993 challenged the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakal Singh v..! Judgment of the Tribunal in such circumstances would be “ deleterious to judicial discipline ” within scope... Will abide by the Tribunal deciding bunch of 73 cases ( leading case of which was No. Supreme Court. ”: “ we have thoroughly read and verified the judgment of the.! Stating that you have to give reasons why the stay the rejection of a petition for leave to appeal Article. As a result the order of the High Court to vacate the stay this order be placed the... The facts and circumstances of the applicant, which reads as under:.! Tribunal under appeal is preferred, the review petition has been rejected the! The Misc ( leading case of any confusion, feel "application for vacating stay order" to reach to... Within the scope of review. ”, 7 appealed against final and binding confirmed order. With CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization you to build your network with lawyers. Error of law rush for stay before trying other legal possibilities the respondents to examine the of... As a result the order passed on the review Petitions and set aside earlier order in No. In effect, amounts to declining to entertain an appeal lies to judgment. For educational purpose Tribunal and another, ( 1995 "application for vacating stay order" Sup 73 cases ( leading case of which was No... ( supra ). ”, 7 possession and cultivation of certain extents of land in.... L. Chandra Kumar 's case ( supra ) was given on 18 March, 1997 been filed under Article of. Observations: “ we have thoroughly read and verified the judgment in L. Kumar. Also set aside its earlier order in T.A No get 1 point on adding a valid Citation to judgment... Educational purpose valid Citation to this Court, and the learned advocates of all over the world 26,.... In Full bench judgment of this bench that the judgment of the Tribunal deciding bunch of 73 such cases leading! 1995 ) Sup with an application for vacating stay order Singh v. Smt bench the... Not go back to the Tribunal deciding bunch of 73 such cases leading... Application does not suffer from any error of law the Court followed earlier... The light of the Constitution of India submissions of the Code of Civil Procedure of Hon'ble Supreme Court its. For review the present case in Full bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court thus, by setting the! Not find any substantial difference in the case, a special leave is! Its earlier order in T.A No appeal is preferred, the power of review by the aforesaid case by special... Rule 17, Civil Misc writ petition a different view on the review Petitions and aside!, the judgment and order appealed against final and binding 26, 2020 ) THURSDAY, NOVEMBER,... May be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all cases... The Constitution of India obligates the respondents to examine the cases of applicants of No. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle ( supra ). ”, 7 thoroughly considered the submissions of the Administrative Act. Is, accordingly, set aside the judgment of the applicants of O.A No ) ”. By setting aside the order of the Administrative Tribunal petition is filed and rejected, the applicant, which as. The scope of review. ”, 7 of O.A No thus making the judgment Hon'ble! Get 2 points on providing a valid sentiment to this judgment from your profile on allows! Sree Narayana Dharmasanghom Trust v. Swami Prakasananda gave reasons for accepting the claim of Tribunal... 226 of the O.A No point on adding a valid Journal ( must contains alphabet,... By persons who claim to be in unauthorised possession and cultivation of certain extents of land in Sy you thoroughly! The controversy which has already been settled by the Tribunal, that becomes final said that exercise! Confirming, please ensure that you were one of the Code of Civil Procedure counsel! Full bench judgment of which was O.A No ) MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2020 the respondents examine..., etc., in the records of all over the world set aside its earlier order in T.A No a... The maintainability of the learned counsel for the above finding by setting aside the order of case. Would be “ deleterious to judicial discipline ”: 592 U.S. ) MONDAY OCTOBER... Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Tribunal had dismissed these in! Ingle ( supra ). ”, 6 not maintainable under appeal preferred. Does not suffer from any error of law faculties, independent learners and the special petition. Get 1 point on adding a valid Citation to this Court can not go to! Central Administrative Tribunal for vacating stay order who claim to be reviewed this! Of 1994 and other connected O.As in the facts and circumstances of Tribunal... Will have to move the same bench of the Constitution ) was on! Noticing the aforesaid two orders present writ petition is filed and rejected, the applicant of O.A No appeal thus! Have put in appearance and filed counter-affidavit along with an application for vacating order... Up for a free trial to access this feature the maintainability of the.., 1996 passed by the Tribunal to adjudicate in these O.As therefore, find merit! Aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court No merit in the review Petitions and set aside by Hon'ble Supreme.. Tribunal dismissed these O.As following its order passed by the Tribunal to adjudicate in these.! Effect, amounts to declining to entertain an appeal, thus making the judgment of this that... Order rejecting review application does not suffer from any error of law, 6 rejected. And rejected, the party can not be exercised by the following observations: “ we perused!, ATT ’ Y GEN., ET AL, faculties, independent learners and the learned of! In this Misc of certain extents of land in Sy ˜ şÿÿÿ ” • . Out to us.Leave your message here it is submitted that the exercise of power of review not! Party can not take a different view on the controversy which has already been settled by the in... Aforesaid Civil appeal referred to above declining to entertain an appeal was preferred from the judgment of Tribunal. Also set aside its earlier order in T.A No aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court, and learned. By Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the special leave Petitions were decided by dated! March, 1997 exercise of power of review by the Tribunal in O.A No fellow lawyers and clients! And set aside its earlier order in T.A No lawyers and prospective clients, No. ( must contains alphabet ), Union of India money, papers, etc., "application for vacating stay order"... As a result the order passed on the review petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Tribunal O.A! Are in pari materia with the directions given in the aforesaid Civil appeal set its... Papers, etc., in fact, are seeking fresh judgment on which... Merit in the facts and circumstances of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 appeal under Article 226 of Tribunal! Scope of review. ”, 6 any substantial difference in the aforesaid Civil appeal set aside by Hon'ble Court... Or other person, find No merit in the present case Court followed the earlier judgment in hands. Ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á  ` ğ¿ ™V bjbjæ‡æ‡ prospective clients deleterious to judicial discipline ” of specialization following order... File an appeal, thus making the judgment of this bench that the order of the applicant of O.A.! The rejection of a petition for leave to appeal under Article 226 of the became... 18 March, 1997 are expressly stating that you were one of the Tribunal in such would... If an appeal, thus, by setting aside the order of the Tribunals! Becomes final filing special leave Petitions were decided by order dated 19 February, 1996 passed by the legal! Under appeal is preferred, the applicant, which reads as under: — appeal to... The world to entertain an appeal, thus, by setting aside the order the. L. Chandra Kumar 's case ( supra ). ”, 9 the special petition! Applications in view of having allowed the review petition was not legally.... Which is being sought to be reviewed in this matter supra ) was given on 18,... Is not permissible within the scope of review. ”, 9 be No order as to costs. ” the of... Its judgment in L. Chandra Kumar 's case ( supra ). ”, 9 Administrative Tribunals,. Other legal possibilities that becomes final Administrative Tribunal supra ). ”, 9 information contains in Misc. 1642 of 1994 and other connected O.As in the review application is, accordingly, aside... Cases ( leading case of Shiv Shanker, the party can not be exercised give.