64caw630.11.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application No. 630 of 2011 in Writ Petition No. 4997 of 2003 (D) (Rajesh s/o. Rambhau Khankhure .vs. Union of India and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D. D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 06/04/2011. Heard Mr.A.B.Moon, Adv. for the petitioner/applicant and Mr.S.K.Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondents. Civil Application No.630 of 2011 is moved by the petitioner/applicant in disposed of Writ Petition No.4997 of 2003. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the said petition came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dt. 8.12.2006, which reads thus : “Parties to the petition have filed minutes of order dated 08.12.2006, duly signed by the petitioner, and countersigned by his counsel and also signed by the counsel 64caw630.11.odt 2 . appearing for the respondent-Union of India. The same is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. On the motion made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition stands disposed of in terms of minutes of order dated 08.12.2006 with no order as to costs. Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order. “ It is submitted that, in spite of consent order, no steps are taken by the respondent/Union of India to comply with the same till this date and therefore, present Civil Application has been filed by the petitioner for necessary directions. Mr.S.K.Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondents has not disputed that the order dt. 8.12.2006 is passed on the basis of minutes of the order which was signed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the Union of India. It is submitted that, at a latter point of time, the Union of India has realised that the consent which was given by the then Counsel for the Union of India was not with the concurrence of the department. Counsel for the applicant has 64caw630.11.odt 3 . submitted that the review petition filed by the Union of India against the order dt. 8.12.2006 has also been dismissed and the Special Leave Petition which was filed before the Apex Court has also been withdrawn. On the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is absolutely clear that the order dt. 8.12.2006 passed by this Court is still holding the field and there is no reason for the Union of India not to implement the same. In the circumstances, we direct respondent no.2 to implement the said order dt. 8.12.2006 forthwith. Civil Application No. 630 of 2011 is allowed accordingly. Copy of this order duly authenticated be supplied to the learned Counsel for the respective parties. JUDGE JUDGE jais