SAKTI NARAYAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for reconsideration of the Judgment and Order dated the February, 1980 passed by me in Civil Rule No. 1194 (W) of 1979 only.

(2.) THE said Civil Rule No. 1194 (W) of 1979, along with others, where the actions taken by the Respondents or purported to have been taken by them in refusing the facilities of booking of coal in Smalls or clubbing of them, have been sought to be refused by the Respondents, pursuant to the Notifications as mentioned in the Judgment, have been challenged. Such coal matters, on being a signed, were heard as group, cases on inverse dates from 14th January, 1980 to 29th January, 1980 and as mentioned in the judgment, Mr, Soumen Ghose, who was appearing for the petitioners in all the Rules, undertook that arguments in Civil Rule Nos. 1194 (W) of 1979, 1187 (W) of 1979, 1199-93 (W) of 1979 1195 (W) of 1979, 2575-80 (W) of 1979, 2583 (W)-89 (W) of 1979, 2773-74 (W) of 1979, 2776-2777 (W) of 1979 and] -1235-36 (W) of 1979, would only be advanced and not in other cases. It was also agreed by the learned Advocates appearing that the arguments of the petitioners in all those cases would be advanced first and thereafter, the Respondents would reply one after the other. In fact, such procedure was followed and perhaps that has created some difficulty for the petitioners and may be, for that reason, the present application has been filed, and that too for the reasons as indicated hereinafter. would not have ordinarily referred to the circumstances but am making a reference to such facts as otherwise I would not be justified in some of my conclusions in this order.

(3.) MR. Soumen Ghose, initially opened his arguments in Civil Rule No. ll94 (W) of 1979 and after proceeding for a day or two, he left his arguments because of circumstances beyond, his control, as he informed the Court that on medical advice, he would not attend court. He informed that he was suffering from Cervical Spondylosis. Such prayer was allowed, on the specific assurance of Mr. Ghose that the cases would hot be adjourned and the hearing would continue. He mentioned that Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, who was appearing in the case of Baldev Prasad Agarwalla v. Union of India (Civil Rule N6s. 1235-36 (W) of 1979) would continue with his arguments and thereafter mr. Mukherjee would be followed by others. Mr. Ghose, of course prayed for liberty to conclude his arguments, if necessary, after the other learned Advocates in the other Rules and if necessary, also to give his reply after the arguments by the learned Advocate for the Respondents. The said prayer was allowed. It should also be noted that during the temporary absence of Mr. Ghose, while the hearing of Civil Rule No. 1194 (W) of 1979, was continuing, his junior Mr. Shyam Sundar Manna read and placed the petition and all petitions in these Railway matters are in the same line and language.