1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. C.A.W.No. 1900/2009 in WRIT PETITION NO. 2869/2009 ( K.N. Vyapari .vs. Rashtrabhushan Ambedkar Mission through its Secretary and others. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mrs. Neeta Jog, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A. S. Dhore, Advocate for Respondent no.1. Ms. K. Satpute, Advocate for Respondent no.2. Mr. S.J. Jichkar, AGP for Respondent no.5. .......... CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JUNE 11, 2010 Heard Mrs. Jog, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dhore, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, Ms. Satpute, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Mr. Jichkar, learned AGP for respondent no.5. None appears for respondents no.3 and 4 though served. This is an application for recalling of the order dated 24.8.2009 issuing Rule and granting interim relief in terms of prayer clause (iii-b). It is the case of Mr. Dhore, learned counsel for respondent no.1 that the issue involved in the petition is squarely covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Awdhesh Narayan K. Singh .vs. 2 Adarsh Vidya Mandir Trust and another reported in 2004 (1) Mh.L.J. 676 and the order dated 24.8.2009 issuing Rule and granting interim relief came to be passed in the absence of either respondent no.1 or his counsel. According to Mr. Dhore on account of some personal difficulty, he could not appear in the Court when the matter was called out for hearing and this Court was pleased to issue Rule and granted interim relief. He, therefore, submitted that the order issuing Rule and granting interim relief be recalled and the opportunity be given to respondent no.1 to make submissions on the issue of maintainability of the petition as well as interim relief. Ms. Satpute, learned counsel for respondent no.2 also supported the submissions made by Mr. Dhore, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and submitted that respondent no.2 also be given an opportunity to make submissions since neither respondent no.2 nor counsel appearing for respondent no.2 could remain present on that day. The prayer has been opposed by Mrs. Jog, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Jog further submitted that the judgment in the case reported in 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 676 is not applicable and there are several other issues involved in the petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, we are of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be served by recalling the order dated 24.8.2009 issuing Rule and it would be in the interest of justice to give an opportunity to respondents no.1 and 2 to make submissions on the 3 issue of maintainability of the petition. In view of above, the order dated 24.8.2009 issuing Rule only is recalled and the respondents no.1 and 2 are given an opportunity to address on the aspect of maintainability of the petition as well as interim relief. Needless to mention here that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and all the contentions are kept open. Since the interim order has been operating from 24.8.2009, the same shall continue to operate till the matter is heard by the regular Bench. Since the petitioner deserves to be compensated, the order issuing Rule is recalled subject to each of the respondents no.1 and 2 paying costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand ) to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE halwai