1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4406 OF 2009 Gorakshanath Yamaji Sarode and others ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. A.S. Deshpande, advocate for the petitioners Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 ..... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 1ST FEBRUARY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This petition takes exception to the decision of the Tribunal dated 24.6.2009 passed in Original Application Nos. 499 to 510 of 2009. The said Original Applications were filed by the petitioners, in effect, questioning the correctness of the decision passed by the Tribunal dated 2.8.2006 in Original Application No. 864 of 2005, which was disposed of alongwith the companion matters. It is not in dispute that the said decision of the Tribunal dated 2.8.2006 was challenged before this Court by some of the parties to the said Original Application and came to be confirmed and against the said decision matter is now 2 taken to the Supreme Court by some other parties to the proceeding and not the petitioners herein. The said appeal is still pending before the Apex Court being S.L.P. (Civil) No. _____ of 2009 (CC No. 1434 of 2009). The Tribunal therefore, rejected the present Original application primarily taking a view that since the decision dated 2.8.2006 is pending appeal before the Apex Court, the question of entertaining the applications preferred by the petitioners relying on K. Ajit Babu and others Vs. Union of India and others, 1997 AIR SCW 3340 and Gopa Bandhu Biswal Vs. Krishna Chandra Mohandi and others, 1998 AIR SCW 1678, does not arise. 2 In the first place, the decisions pressed into service would be relevant only if the petitioners were not to be one of the parties to the disposed of Original Application No. 864 of 2005. Admittedly, the petitioners were impleaded as respondents in the said proceeding. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners were not served with any notice and service is assumed on the basis of some public notice issued in the newspaper. The fact remains that the petitioners were named as respondents in the said Original Application No. 864 of 2005. In that sense, it is not a case where order has been passed by the Tribunal, which affects the person who is not party in the petition. The grievance about irregularities in service of notice and not following the procedure or depriving of opportunity or natural justice is a matter which ought to be and could be agitated by the petitioners by 3 challenging the decision of the Tribunal in the first place before this Court and in any case before the Apex Court where the whole issue is stated to be pending. The principle stated in the two decisions pressed into service will be of no avail qua a person who was party to the proceeding. In our opinion, no interference with the view expressed by the Tribunal in rejecting the present set of Original Applications is warranted. That is the correct approach. 3 Needless to observe that the dismissal of this petition or for that matter rejection of the subsequent Original Application filed by the petitioners herein will not preclude the petitioners to pursue such other remedy as may be permissible in law before appropriate forum. This petition is dismissed. 4 At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may take up the matter before the Apex Court and for which reason interim protection be continued. We see no difficulty in acceding to this request. Status quo order to continue for a period of four weeks from today. *****