E: / ^' IH_J;HE HISH GOURi? OF J0BICATORE A3! 3ABaLPURte.^.) 8 WRIT PETITIQN N0. ~5. i /^; Q s f Cr5 "7 V1997 PErEEIOBE&j V;": dc^ aat. Kasaa Slwari^ W/o Shri B.N»riwaril; Hirala Hagar,^ Bas Staad, BILACT>UK(M.P.) jEffiSPO_NQBHDS$ l. 2. 3. - Y E R S tT S - Mstrict «Ti3dge»; BIIAS^BS tTaioa of Jndia, Threughs Seneral ltanager»i S&t»tb Sastern Rai.lway» Gardes Ssaatif CALC8'CT& Estate Offieee» S&utli Bastern Bail-waya,; BIIiASPUK IN THE MJSTER OE &RrXCa<E 227 OP csBNarrru'pTON o? XSDI&S <<< *«ICTI tbqi^i \\ 3^-<iitiiM'M, •^iNpTS', ftdiyy _..^i.^- 3i ^ y^T- '"^200 an^l Tra?r (1pf3^q) TOtiw^ifeiaii^a 4'Klf'fll-l Kllldf -if fest ^R^ ^affiwan^r JUSTICElN.K. AOARWAL Shri Sumesh Bajaj, ^dvocate, for the petitioner. Smt. Hameeda Sidd^qui, Adv. for tlie respondents No. 2 None appears forre^pondent No. 1. Heard finallv. Shri Bajaj only i^i^ed the question of competency and jurisdiction of the Estate jOfficer and submitted tfaat since the order passed by the Esl^te Oflicer was widiout jurisdiction and, therefore, the petitiojn deserves to be allowed. So far as fhe quest^on of competency and jurisdiction of the Estate Ofiicer is con^emed, fhe said point was raised m CiviS Revision No. 471/^000 .(I<hiyaldas(deceased)thr6.ugh L.Rs. Gird.harilal and pjtiers -v- Union of India and ofhers) before the High Court /cjf M.P. and was decided against the petitioner. The same vl^w was taken by this Court m Civil .Revision No. 2407/20QC|, which has been decided by Single ;h vide order Ana^xure R-2 and^ tfaerefore, the ppint raised by Shri Bajaj, h^s no m.erit as the sam:e is squarely covered bv ftie earBer debision of this Court. .•;,;^;..;;„ "-•'aac—ys 3Iit% W R-l "crat 3(Tii?i.^)*iict» tlllCT! (hHltft 75^ '<1l<lld<1, ®Tll<1'|tc,fqcliyy ^^^•3^^/e-^-_ ira?-"--"--^---------"iwt20o sn^i'T^T (^pfg^1') ^«1iqRyf?d 3:nt?T Heard on I.A. No. writpetition. This petition has b4 fheyear 1997 aiidsince| am.endment sought by w^y on 27-7-2009 after 12 caiinot be allowed tn fhil is rejected. In view of the abov<t if at aSl, the petitioner f^ .^rticle 14 of flie Co4 appropriate remedy in| appropriate proceeding. P, application for ainendment in the '+t^^'l *{W^ ^ fs^ <Pt^.l< ^? aifin sii^iT :en filed by the petitioner v?'ay back in Ifhen it is pendiag and fherefore, the of the am.endment application ffled years of filing of the writ petition s petition. Therefore, the appUcation [, the petition is dismissed. However, |els that he has some remedy uiider ^stitution of India, he may seek accordaiice .wifh law by filing .,.^:l;-:SdA :•.'-••.'.. ;:N'IC-'Agrawal; re