1 7737.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7737 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2026 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7737 OF 2008 Union of India & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Mr.V.B.Ambedkar ...Respondent ...... Mrs.Neeta Masurkar for Petitioners. Mr.R.P.Saxena for Respondent. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2026 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7737 OF 2008 Vasant Bhau Ambekar ...Applicant Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.R.P.Saxena for Applicant. Mrs.Neeta Masurkar for Respondent. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED:- MARCH 15, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule is already granted in this Writ 2 7737.08 Petition on 26th June, 2009. With the consent of Counsel appearing for the respondent, the Writ Petition is taken up on Board for final hearing and proceeded forthwith. 2. The Writ Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Tribunal dated 24th September, 2008 in original application No.357 of 2002. The said original application was decided by the Tribunal on the earlier occasion and disposed of on 30th November, 2007. The said decision of the Tribunal was assailed by the petitioners before this Court by way of Writ Petition No.5018/2008. The said Writ Petition was allowed in terms of order dated 14th July, 2008. What is significant to note is that this Court was not only pleased to set-aside the order passed by the Tribunal dated 30th November, 2007 in original Application No.357 of 2002 but also proceeded to direct the Tribunal to consider the said original application de novo. However, the Tribunal by the impugned Judgment has allowed the original application by first modifying its earlier order dated 30th November, 2007 and also directed to reconsider the case of the respondent de novo in terms of the modified directions contained in paragraph No.5 of the impugned order. 3 7737.08 3. Considering the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5018/2008 dated 14th July, 2008, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to modify its earlier order dated 30th November, 2007 which was already set-aside by this Court. In fact, the order of this Court dated 14th July, 2008 in unmistakable terms directed the Tribunal to consider the restored original application de novo in accordance with law. Thus understood, the approach of the Tribunal in disposing of the original application in terms of the impugned order in the first place by modifying its earlier order which was already set-aside, cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. On this count alone, the impugned decision deserves to be quashed and set-aside and the original application restored to the file of the Tribunal for reconsideration on its own merits in accordance with law in the light of the observations made by this Court on the earlier occasion in Writ Petition No.5018/2008. 4. Indeed, Counsel for the respondent would contend that the tenor of the impugned order is not an order merely modifying the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 30th November, 2007 but is an order after reconsidering the entire matter afresh. We are not impressed by this argument. In Paragraph No.5 of the order, the Tribunal has clearly proceeded to examine the original application on the basis that there was error in the operative portion 4 7737.08 of the Tribunal’s earlier order dated 30th November, 2007 and therefore, proceeded to modify the same. That course of action was not open to the Tribunal. Instead, the Tribunal ought to have reexamined the matter afresh on its own merits. 5. In view of the above, this Petition ought to succeed. The impugned decision of the Tribunal is quashed and set-aside and the original application No.357 of 2002 is restored to the file to its original number to be decided by the Tribunal keeping in mind the observations made by this Court in order dated 14th July, 2008 in Writ Petition No.5018/2008. The restored original application be decided expeditiously. 6. Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms. We make it clear that all questions are left open to be decided afresh. 7. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, nothing survives for consideration in Civil Application No.2026/2010. The same also stands disposed of. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)