acd 1 WP.9860-2010.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 9860 OF 2010. ER. Karpurapu Vara Prasada Rao. ..... Petitioner. V/s Hon’ble Shri Justice P.R. Raman, Member of CAT, & Anr. ..... Respondents. --- Mr. ER. Karpurapu Vara Prasada Rao, Petitioner present in person. --- CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE AND U.D. SALVI, JJ. December 15, 2010. PC: We have heard Shri Rao, the petitioner present in peson. 2] The petitioner was employed with the India Security Press, Nasik Road, Naisk, and he was compulsorily retired by an order dated 29.5.2003. He had filed Original Application No.679 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench challenging the orders passed by his ex-Employer on 29.05.2003, 05.11.2004, and 07.11.2006. In the said Original Application, notices were issued and were made returnable on 31.07.2007 for admission. Subsequently, on 28.01.2008 the Original Application has been admitted and was directed to be kept in the sine die list. acd 2 WP.9860-2010.sxw 3] The Original Application was listed before the Tribunal on 25.08.2010, when the applicant/petitioner was present but for some reason or the other, the Original Application was adjourned and was directed to be listed on 22.10.2010. The petitioner claims that in the meanwhile i.e. on 21.9.2010 he has addressed a letter to the Registrar of Tribunal stating that he would not appear before the Tribunal on any of the next dates including 22.10.2010 as he has been deprived of his legal claims. On 22.10.2010, when the Original Application No.679 of 2006 was called out before the Tribunal, it noted that none was present for the applicant, and therefore, issue notice to him intimating the next date of hearing i.e. 04.01.2011. This notice dated 22.10.2010 issued by the Tribunal is sought to be challenged in this Petition. 4] We are shocked that the Petitioner has approached us against the said notice, intimating him the next date in his own case. The notice was received after more than one month i.e. 23.11.2010 cannot be a reason to hold that it was an illegal order passed by the Tribunal. When O.A. No.679 of 2006 will appear on 04.01.2011, there is sufficient advance notice to the petitioner. A number of grievances have been sought to be agitated in this Petition, and they are required to be considered in the pending Original Application filed by the Petitioner. In our opinion, there is no cause of action in this Petition and the acd 3 WP.9860-2010.sxw Petitioner states that he had appeared before the Chief Justice of this court on 10.12.2010 and he was directed to appear before us. The Petitioner may have his own reason to get agitated on account of the pendency of his claim before the Tribunal but that by itself will not be a reason to justify his challenge to the notice intimating the next date i.e. 04.01.2011 and calling upon him to remain present either in person or through an Advocate. The application addressed by the petitioner to the Registrar of the Tribunal, by itself would not take away the powers of the Tribunal to issue him a notice intimating him the next date of hearing, and in fact the Tribunal has shown more indulgence in informing the petitioner the next date despite such a letter by the petitioner. 5] Hence, this Writ Petition fails and stands rejected summarily. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)