1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application No. 277/2009 in W.P.No. 5158/2007 Shri Prakash Ramdeo Jaiswal vs. Chairman & Managing Director (General Manager), Food Corporation of India, 16-20 Bara Khamba Lane, New Delhi 110001 and others.. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. CORAM : A.P.Lavande & Prasanna B.Varale,JJ DATE OF RESERVING : 13.11.2009 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.11.2009 Heard Mr. V.R. Mundra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.H. Deshpande, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. S.R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. 2. By this application, the petitioner seeks review of the order dated 15th December, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 5158/2007 filed by the petitioner by which the petition was allowed to be withdrawn. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was interested in pursuing the writ petition which is evident from the fact that at one stage he had sought amendment of the petition which was allowed by this Court. According to the petitioner, the learned 2` counsel for the petitioner who was then appearing for the petitioner sought withdrawal of the petition without his instructions and, therefore, the order passed by this court allowing the petition to be withdrawn deserves to be set aside. 4. Mr. Mundra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had never allowed the counsel appearing for him to withdraw the petition and the petitioner was interested in pursuing the petition. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not present in the court on 15.12.2009 and the petition came to be withdrawn by his counsel without specific instructions from him. According to Mr. Mundra, great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the order is not reviewed inasmuch as the petitioner has been non suited although he has been interested to pursue the petition filed by him. In support of his submissions, Mr. Mundra relied upon the following authorities. i) Smt. Jamilabai Abdul Kadar vs. Shankarlal Gulabchand and others; (AIR 1975 Supreme Court, 2202); ii) Lajpat Rai and others vs. State of Punjab and others; (AIR 1981 Supreme Court, 1401); 3` iii) Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar vs. The Bar Council of Maharashtra, Bombay and others (AIR 1984 Supreme Court, 110); and iv)Annasabeb Virupaksha Bidre vs. Dada Tatoba Patil and others (2005(2) Mh. L.J. 221). 5. Per contra, Mr. K.H. Deshpande, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the counsel appearing for the petitioner had authority to withdraw the petition and as such the order dated 15.12.2008 allowing the petition to be withdrawn does not deserve to be reviewed. According to Mr. Deshpande after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court was not inclined to entertain the petition and the permission to withdraw the petition was sought in the midst of the dictation and withdrawal was with the consent and with instructions of the petitioner. According to Mr. Deshpande, the authorities cited by the petitioner are not applicable in the present case. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner whose counsel has chosen to withdraw the petition after finding that this Court was not inclined to entertain the petition is not entitled to review of the said order. 4` 6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record and the Judgments relied upon by Mr. Mundra. 7. In the reply filed by the respondents 1 to 3 to the application seeking review it has been specifically stated that the writ petition was argued by the counsel for the petitioner for quite some time and this Court was not inclined to entertain the petition and started dictation of the Judgment and in the midst of the dictation the counsel for the petitioner sought withdrawal of the petition with the instructions of the petitioner. In the re-joinder filed by the petitioner it has been stated that the petitioner was not present in the Court on 15.12.2008 and as such there was no question of instructing his counsel to withdraw the petition. However, there is no specific statement made by the petitioner that he had specifically instructed his counsel not to withdraw the petition. Moreover, the statement made by the respondents 1 to 3 in their reply that the petition was withdrawn after the court started dictating the order of dismissal of the writ petition has not been specifically denied. This being the position, it is evident that the learned counsel then appearing for the petitioner chose to withdraw the petition in order to avoid any adverse order in the petition. As stated above the petitioner nowhere has stated that he had specifically instructed his counsel not to withdraw the 5` petition. Therefore, the necessary sequitur is that the counsel appearing for the petitioner had authority to withdraw the petition. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner having chosen to withdraw the petition finding that the Court was not inclined to entertain the petition, the petitioner now cannot be permitted to contend that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to pursue his writ petition. If such a course is adopted by the Court it would be subversive of justice. In our considered view, the counsel for the petitioner who had authority to withdraw the petition having chosen to withdraw the petition finding that court was not inclined to entertain the petition, the petitioner now can not be permitted to contend that he has been always interested in pursing the writ petition and his counsel withdrew the petition without his consent. As stated above, nowhere in the application or in his re-joinder filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has averred that he had specifically instructed his counsel not to withdraw the petition. In this factual background we are not inclined to entertain the application seeking review of the order dated 15.12.2008. None of the authorities relied upon by Mr. Mundra deals with the situation similar to the one arising in the present case and as such we do not deem it necessary to refer to the authorities in detail. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit 6` in the application. Hence, the application is dismissed but with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE patle