REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

V.DEVAIAH Appellant

V/S

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARIMNAGAR(PER S.B.SINHA, C.J.) Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SECRETARY OF STATE V. TAMESIDE [REFERRED TO]
THAKUR JUGAL KISHORE SINHA V. SITAMARHI CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. [REFERRED TO]
S.T.COMMR.,U.P.V. M.D. AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
BRAJNANDAN SINHA VS. JYOTINARAIN [REFERRED TO]
VIRINDAR KUMAR SATYAWADI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
BASHESHAR NATH VS. MODEL KNITTING INDUSTRIES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. RAI BAHADUR HURDUT ROY MOTI LALL JUTE MILLS:S K C SUGAR LIMITED:NEW SWADESHI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
B RAJAGOPALA NAIDU VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
NARESH SHRIDHAR MIRAJKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
U N R RAO VS. INDIRA GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD TRIVANDRUM VS. T P KUNHALIUMMA [REFERRED TO]
S K SARKAR MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE U P LUCKNOW VS. VINAY CHANDRA MISRA [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRI VS. GOVIND SINGH RAWAT [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION ANANTNAG VS. KATIJI [REFERRED TO]
T SHEPHARD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
P K UNNI VS. NIRMALA INDUSTRIES [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. SUBHASH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
L CHANDRA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
T SUDHAKAR PRASAD VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DADI JAGANNADHAM VS. JAMMULU RAMULU [REFERRED TO]
C.V.RATNAM V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GOURI SHANKAR BAJORIA VS. RAM BANKA [REFERRED TO]
SITAMARHI CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD VS. THAKUR JUGAL KISHORE SINHA [REFERRED TO]
ARABINDA DAS AND ETC. VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the State Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") has jurisdiction to condone delay in filing review petition is the question referred to this Full Bench. FACTS:

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable in the Armed Reserve Police of Karimnagar District in the year 1990. By an order dated 31-10-1991, the respondent terminated the services of the petitioner or. the ground that he did not undergo the three star test at the time of selection. He filed O.A.No. 47791 of 1991 before the learned Tribunal challenging the order of ermination wherein direction was given to the respondent to conduct the test for the petitioner. The respondent found that the petitioner did not come up for selection in the test conducted. The petitioner challenged the said order in O.A.No. 4322 of 1993. The learned Tribunal by reason of an order dated 6-3-1995 allowed-the O.A., filed by the petitioner. As the respondent did not implement the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed Contempt Application, being C.A.No. 228 of 1996. The respondent On receipt of notice in the contempt case, filed a review petition in Review M. A. (Sr) No. 5662 of 1996 along with a petition in M.A. No. 1646 of 1996 to condone delay of 424 days in filing the review petition. The learned Tribunal allowed the said petition and condoned the delay in filing review petition.

(3.) The petitioner questioning the said order of the learned Tribunal filed the writ petition on the ground that no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the inordinate, delay of 424 days in filing the review petition.

Click here to view full judgment.

DEVAIAH V Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KARIMNAGAR

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address