1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6148 OF 2004 Jacob Yohanan .....Petitioner. v/s The Administrator & anr. ...... Respondents. ----- Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Marne for respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 25th March, 2008 P.C.: 1. By this Petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 24/06/2004 in Original Application No.375 of 2003. That Original Application was filed by the respondent No.2. Alongwith that Original Application, respondent No.2 has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the Original Application. In para 1 of his application for condonation of delay, he stated that in Original Application he has challenged the order dated 20/09/1993 by which the present petitioner has been promoted and, therefore, there is delay of about 10 years in filing the Original Application. 2 He gave reasons why, according to him, delay deserves to be condoned. The Central Administrative Tribunal issued notice on the application for condonation of delay which was registered as Misc. Petition No.382 of 2003 and that notice was made returnable on 11/07/2003. On being served with the notice and the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner appeared and has filed his reply to the application for condonation of delay. No notice of the Original Application was issued to the petitioner. The Central Administrative Tribunal, however, by order dated 24/06/2004 not only condoned the delay but even disposed of the Original Application without issuing notice to the petitioner or without obtaining consent of the petitioner to decide the Original Application without issuing notice. 2. There is specific ground taken in the Petition that the impugned order was made by the Central Administrative Tribunal without issuing notice to the petitioner of the Original Application. As the Central Administrative Tribunal decided to issue notice only on the application for condonation of delay, the only course open to the CAT was to first hear the application for condonation of delay, make the order condoning the delay and, thereafter, issue notice of the main application and then hear the main application. It is, therefore, obvious that the order impugned in the Petition has been made by the Central Administrative Tribunal in complete and total breach of the principles of natural justice and the procedure settled by law. The order also shows that 3 though the CAT condoned the delay, there are no reasons given for condoning the delay. In our opinion, therefore, the order impugned in the Petition is liable to be set aside. Normally, after setting aside the order, we would have remanded the Original Application back to the Central Administrative Tribunal but the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner informs us that the respondent No.2 who was the original applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal has already retired from service and that the petitioner continues in service. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 who was the original applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal confirms this fact. In our opinion, therefore, remanding the proceedings back to the Central Administrative Tribunal will not serve any useful purpose. In our opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- O R D E R The order dated 24/06/2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in Original Application No.375 of 2003 is set aside and the Original Application No.375 of 2003 is dismissed. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. 4 (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)