1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR M.C.A. 303/2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2988/2000 Ashok Nampalliwar ..vs.. The Work Manager, C.W. M.S.R.T.C. =================================== Mr. A.H. Jamal, Advocate for the applicant Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1 =================================== CORAM: A.P. LAVANDE & S.R. DONGAONKAR, JJ. DATE:27.6.2008 P.C. By this application, the applicant seeks review/ modification of order dated 5.6.2006 passed by this Court. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2988/2000 which was dismissed by order dated 19.3.2001. Against the order of dismissal passed by this court, present applicant preferred Civil Appeal No.1177/2004 before the Apex Court. By order dated 31.8.2005, Apex Court remanded the matter to this court and gave an opportunity to respondent to place on record materials in support of its stand that the applicant was appointed to the post meant for Scheduled Tribe. Thereafter, the matter came up for hearing on 5.6.2006. Advocate D.C.R. Mishra who was then appearing on behalf of the petitioner, made a statement that he had no instructions in the matter and he had been informed that some other counsel was engaged by the petitioner. Thereafter, this court dismissed the petition holding that there were no merit in the petition. 2 Grievance made on behalf of the petitioner is that he was not aware of the remand order passed by the Apex Court and therefore, he did not contact his advocate and because of that Advocate Mishra appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a statement that he had no instructions in the matter. Mr. Jamal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that by order dated 5.6.2006 the petition has been dismissed without hearing the petitioner and as such serious prejudice would be caused, if the impugned order is not recalled and the petitioner is not given an opportunity to present his case before this court. The prayer has been opposed by Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent. Having considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we find that the stand taken by the petitioner that he was not aware of the remand order passed by the Apex Court and therefore, he did not contact his advocate and consequently, his advocate did not argue his case when the matter was called out for hearing, has merit. We therefore deem it proper to recall order dated 5.6.2006 with a view to give an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Respondent is permitted to place materials on record in support of its stand, in terms of order passed by the Apex Court. Mr. Patil states that he will file additional affidavit within a period of two weeks. Respondent is permitted to file affidavit within a period of two weeks. 3 Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Writ Petition 2988/2000 stands restored to the file. It be listed for hearing on 25.7.2008 at 2.30 p.m. JUDGE JUDGE smp.