SURENDRA KUMAR DILLIWAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this review application under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 5-6-2000 delivered by Hon'ble Shri J. G. Chitre, J. , in Writ Petition No. 1167 of 2000 dismissing the same in motion hearing in summer vacation.

(2.) THE material and short facts giving rise to this review petition tie in narrow compass: The petitioner had filed one petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India on 31-5-2000 which was registered as Writ Petition No. 1167 of 2000 alongwith two applications, one for urgent hearing and the other application for hearing writ petition in the summer vacation as the matter was very urgent and it was specifically prayed in those applications that the matter is very urgent, therefore it should be heard during summer vacation very early. In the writ petition the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 905 of 1993 on 3-5-2000 was under challenge. Ordinarily such petition was to be listed and was to be heard and decided by the Division Bench but the same was listed before the Single Judge under Rule 5 of Section 1 of the Chapter 1 of High Court Rules. This Rule 5 provides that "except in a matter which is required by virtue of any law to be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges, a Judge sitting alone whilst acting in the long vacation as a Vacation Judge, may exercise the original and appellate jurisdiction vested in the Court (b) in any matter which he considers urgent". Thus, the aforesaid writ petition was listed in motion hearing on 5-6-2000 during summer vacation before the Vacation Judge. The learned Vacation Judge after hearing the learned counsel for petitioner and also learned Addl. Advocate General who appeared for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on advance copy, dismissed as the petition was found unfit for admission. Against which the petitioner has filed this review petition on the ground that the learned Vacation Judge had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the aforesaid writ petition which was filed against the order of the State Administrative Tribunal as under Chapter 1 Rule 1 of Section 1, such petitions cannot be heard by the learned Single Judge and was to be heard and decided by the Division Bench.

(3.) WE have heard Shri Shekhar Bhargava, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Shri Amit Agrawal, for petitioner; Shri D. D. Vyas, learned Addl. Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1 to 4; and Smt. S. Waghmare, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. None appeared for respondent No. 7/ Tribunal.