IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY VPH ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION No. 504 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION No. 2763 OF 2002 Capt. Kersy Rationsha Driver ... Petitioner Vs The Collector of Chennai & Ors. ... Respondents AND NEPC India Ltd. ... Applicant Dr. Mrs. Shyamlha Pappu, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Mr. M. R. Krishnamurthy and Mr. R. M. Pardiwalla i/b Mulla & Mulla & C.B. & C., for the applicant & Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. Mr. S. C. Naidu i/b C. R. Naidu & Co, for the petitioner. CORAM: J. N. PATEL AND P. D. KODE, JJ. DATED: FEBRUARY 16, 2009. P.C.: ---- . In view of connected petition in the matter being Writ Petition No. 2764 of 2002, the Hon’ble Chief Justice has directed that these two petitions are clubbed together, the present petition also be placed before the Bench presided over by Hon’ble Chief Justice alongwith the connected matter. Liberty to the counsel for the parties to mention the matter for fixing the date for direction. 2. Later on counsel moved precipie before the - 2 - Hon’ble Chief Justice and Hon’ble Chief Justice has assigned both the petitions to this Court. By consent of parties, Notice of Motion No. 504 of 2008 is taken up for final hearing. 3. Heard. By the present Notice of Motion, the applicant-NEPC India Ltd. is seeking for setting aside attachment order dated 25th August 2008 of Aircraft being Aircraft Beech King Air C-90A, bearing Registration No.VT-NEI, Sr. No.L.J. 1116, Registration No. & date as 2668 31-05-1995, and to hand over possession of the same to the applicant. 4. The case of the applicant in short is that applicant/ company is not liable to pay any dues of the original petitioner as he was not an employee of the applicant company, the attachment is not justifiable. 5. It is brought to our notice that the order passed by this Court on 25th August 2008 in Notice of Motion No. 220 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 2763 of 2002 was independently challenged by the applicant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and an Interim Application No. 1 in & Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil).../2008 (CC 12595/2008) was moved in the matter for permission to - 3 - file SLP with prayer for interim relief in respect of the said order. The said petition was taken up by the Supreme Court and by the order dated 19-9-2008 the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to dispose of the petition by following order. "Learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition. Permission is granted. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn." 7. In our humble view this forecloses the issue for the very reason that the petition was withdrawn by the petitioner and came to be dismissed as withdrawn and therefore, in so far as applicant before this Court in Notice of Motion is concerned, the order has become final as no liberty was sought by the applicant from withdrawing the petition with liberty to approach this Court in the matter. 8. Apart from this, the main grievance of the applicant appears to be that they are different company and the original petitioner cannot attach their property for recovery of his dues which are certified by the authority, leading to issuance of recovery certificate, and therefore, no proceedings - 4 - can be initiated by the applicant/company. However, the petitioner has misled the authorities and obtained the recovery certificate against the applicant. Therefore, this Court should not assist such a petitioner in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. We are not inclined to go into the history of the litigation, pending before us, as various interim orders passed by this Court from time to time, reflects what is transpired in the matter. Till date the applicant has never approached the concerned authorities for rectification of their order and so far as this Court is concerned, the petition is filed by the original petitioner only for implementing the orders passed by the authorities, against which recovery certificate was issued in favour of the Collector and therefore, this Court will not be in a position to examine all those issues and contentions raised in the Notice of Motion in respect of the orders passed by the authorities, as that is not the subject matter in this petition. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the present Notice of Motion. In the result, Notice of Motion is dismissed with costs. Sd/- Sd/- [ P. D. KODE, J.] [J. N. PATEL, J.]