-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 25 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2152 OF 2001 Bankim Kapadia ..Petitioner versus Union of India and others ..Respondents Mr. K.R. Bulchandani, instructed by M/s. Kamal & Company, for the petitioner in support. Mr. D.J. Khambatta, Additional Solicitor General, with Mr. H.V. Mehta and Mr. Gautam Ankad for the respondents to show cause. WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 112 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2152 OF 2001 Bankim Kapadia ..Petitioner versus Union of India and others ..Respondents Mr. D.J. Khambatta, Additional Solicitor General, with Mr. H.V. Mehta and Mr. Gautam Ankad for the respondents in support. Mr. K.R. Bulchandani, instructed by M/s. Kamal & Company, for the petitioner to show cause. -2- CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT , JJ. DATE: APRIL 09 , 2010 ORAL ORDER (Per R.M. SAVANT, J.): The above Notices of Motion have been filed in a disposed of writ petition. The writ petition has been disposed of by a judgment and order dated 14th July, 2009, and the following directions were issued. “(i) The respondents to intimate the UPSC to initiate the process of selection to the post of Chief Producer within four weeks from date; (ii) The respondents may also request the UPSC to complete the selection procedure in terms of the recruitment Rules within a period of three months thereafter. (iii) The respondents and the UPSC are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the recruitment Rules and without being influenced by the pendency of the criminal case/proceedings against him, if he otherwise fulfils the requirements as regards the qualifications for the said post; (iv) In the event the petitioner is selected for the said post, the continuance of the petitioner in the said post would be contingent upon the result of the criminal prosecution which is pending against him in the Sessions Court at Mumbai.” 2. Notice of Motion No. 25 of 2010 has been filed by the original petitioner for the following reliefs. “(b) that further directions be passed pursuant to order dated 14.07.2009 passed by this Hon’ble Court directing the -3- Respondent No.1 to appoint and regularize with immediate effect the appointment of the Petitioner as the Chief Producer, Films Division, Mumbai, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in view of his selection by Respondent No.2 pursuant to letter at Exhibit “A” to the Petition.” 3. The said relief has been sought on the ground that the respondents have not complied with the directions as contained in the judgment and order dated 14th July, 2009. 4. The original respondents have filed Notice of Motion No. 112 of 2010 for the following reliefs:- “(a) This Hon’ble Court may please to recall direction 7 (iii) in order dated 14-7-2009 and modify the said direction to the extent which provides to consider the case of the Petitioner and in terms of Recruitment Rules without being influenced by the pendency of the criminal case/proceedings against him. (b) This Hon’ble Court may please to modify appropriately by extending the compliance of the timings given in the directions 7 (i) 7 (ii) in order dated 14-7-2009” The extension of time to comply with the said directions is sought on the grounds mentioned in the affidavit in support of the said Motion. The grounds, inter alia, disclose that the Recruitment Rules for various posts including two posts in question have been finalised on 18th March, 2010 and bear the nomenclature “Recruitment Rules, 2010”. The said Recruitment Rules have been finalised after going through the gamut of consultation with the UPSC, etc. -4- The respondents have, in their affidavit, stated that on account of the said fact that they were not in a position to comply with the directions as contained in the said judgment and order dated 14th July, 2009. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also considered the reasons cited for the non-compliance of the directions by the respondents. We are satisfied with the said reasons and are therefore, inclined to extend the time for complying with the directions. We, therefore, extend the time upto 15th October, 2010 for complying with the directions as contained in our judgment and order dated 14th July, 2009. We expect the respondents to comply with the said directions within the extended time. The respondents to note that no further extension of time would be granted nor the respondents would apply for the same. The learned Additional Solicitor General Shri Khambatta, fairly submits that the process of selection would be completed within the extended time. 6. As regards prayer clause (a) of the motion is concerned, the said directions were given as contained in direction 7(iii), after hearing the counsel for the parties and after being satisfied that such directions were required to be issued in the facts and circumstances of the case. If the respondents were aggrieved by the said directions, they ought to have challenged the same by -5- approaching the Apex Court. Having not done so, they cannot seek the said relief as contained in prayer clause (a) in the application seeking extension of time. We therefore refuse to grant the relief sought by prayer clause (a). We therefore, allow Notice of Motion No.112 of 2010 to the extent of granting extension of time upto 15th October, 2010; which would be the outer limit for complying with the directions as contained in our Judgment and Order dated 14th July, 2009, meaning thereby the completion of selection process for the post of Chief Producer. 7. In so far as the Motion filed by the original petitioner being Notice of Motion No. 25 of 2010 is concerned, as indicated above, the reliefs in the said Motion are sought on the ground that the respondents have failed to comply with the directions as contained in our judgment and order dated 14th July, 2009. If the petitioner was aggrieved with the fact that the respondents have not complied with the directions, it would have been open for the petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings against the respondents for non-compliance of the same. However, the petitioner has not chosen to do so. Non-compliance of the directions as contained in the judgment and order dated 14th July, 2009 would, therefore, not entitle the petitioner to pray for reliefs which have not been granted by our said judgment and order. The reliefs, therefore, sought in the said Motion cannot be countenanced by us. No relief, therefore, can be granted to the original petitioner. -6- 8. Both the Notices of Motion are accordingly disposed of in the light of the order passed in Notice of Motion No.112 of 2010 filed by the Respondents. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.