SHREE HANUMAN INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the aforesaid eight writ appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, since the appeals have raised identical issues. Writ appeals No. 47 of 2009, 49 of 2009, 50 of 2009, 53 of 2009 and 54 of 2009 are arising out of common judgment dated 07.10.2009, whereas, WA Nos. 48 of 2009, 51 of 2009, 52 of 2009 arising out of common judgment dated 06.10.2009, passed by a learned Single Judge. Having lost their writ petition Nos. 226,227,208,209,210, 157, 141 and 173 (SH) of 2009 vide impugned judgments, the writ Petitioners have filed the appeals, under reference.

(2.) We have heard Smti. N. Saikia, learned Counsel for the Appellants whereas the Respondents were represented by Sri S.P. Mahanta, learned senior counsel.

(3.) At the outset, it would be apposite to mention here that the reliefs sought for by the Appellants were also raised and decided by the same Court in Anr. series of writ petitions, vide its judgment dated 20.06.2008, passed in W.P. (C) No. 279 (SH) of 2007. The aforesaid judgment dated 20.06.2008 was also upheld by the Division Bench and Special Leave Petition, filed by the Respondents being SLP No. 9578-9584/2009 were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 01.05.2009. In the impugned judgment dated 06.10.2009 the Learne'd Single Judge has categorically observed that "there is no dispute that the instant case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 279 (SH) of 2007". However, the present set of writ petitions have been basically dismissed on the ground of delay and latches on the part of the Petitioners in filing the writ petitions. At the same time the Learned Single Judge has also taken a view that it would be difficult to get allocation of additional fund at a belated stage and on these premises, the Learned Single Judge has declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.