1 os-nmw-411-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 411 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2033 OF 2007 Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Sethi ..Applicant/Petitioner Vs. Mr. R.S. Sharma, CMD, ONGC and ors. .. Respondents Applicant/Petitioner present in person. Mr. Naushad Engineer a/w P.V. Pereira i/by Divya Shah Associates for respondent nos.1,2,4,5,7,15 and 18. Mrs. S.V. Bharucha for Union of India. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. JULY 28, 2010. P.C. 1. Notice of Motion be registered. 2. With the assistance of the applicant, party-in-person, we have gone through the prayers from (A) to (G) as set out in this Notice of 2 os-nmw-411-10 Motion. Prayer clause (A) refers to the earlier orders passed by this court in earlier writ petitions or Notices of Motion and the interlocutory orders which were passed and subsequently vacated or set aside are prayed to be restored. In prayer clause (B), the applicant prays for quashing and setting aside the enquiry proceedings and the consequential order of removal dated 28/3/2007 and the Appellate order dated 18/8/2007 dismissing the appeal filed against the order of removal. In prayer clause (C), he is seeking directions to the respondents to provide all information, documentation and evidence sought by him. In prayer clause (D), he seeks directions for re-possession of the official accommodation and he claims that he was illegally and forcibly evicted by the officials of the ONGC. He also prays for refund of the gratuity amount, which, at the relevant time, was Rs.3,50,000/-. In prayer clause (E), he prays for directions for unconditional release without any deduction of gratuity amount of Rs.10 lakhs as well as release of PRBS, which he claims that it runs into several lakhs of rupees along with social security scheme benefits. In prayer clause (F), he claims for interim compensation of Rs.50 lakhs and another compensation of Rs.10,000/- per day from the date of removal. In prayer 3 os-nmw-411-10 clause (G), he seeks directions for penal action against the officers of the ONGC. 3. The applicant/petitioner had approached this court in Writ Petition No. 1636 of 2005 which challenged the departmental enquiry initiated against him. He had also claimed the relief of promotion to the higher post. This petition was disposed on 17/1/2006. He filed Writ Petition No. 1898 of 2006 with almost the same reliefs as were prayed for in Writ Petition No. 1636 of 2005, but in addition he challenged the order of transfer. This petition was dismissed on 25/7/2006. The petitioner was holding the post of Superintending Engineer with ONGC and consequent to the departmental enquiry initiated against him, he was punished and removal order dated 28/3/2007 was passed. This order was challenged by him in a departmental appeal before the Chairman of ONGC and the appeal was dismissed on 18/8/2007. Consequently, this petition has been amended. 4. Almost all the prayers i.e. prayers regarding the interim stay, retention of residential accommodation and release of gratuity etc., have been considered by this court from time to time and on 6/1/2010 Notice of 4 os-nmw-411-10 Motion Nos.610/08, 295/09 and 347/09 came to be disposed as withdrawn. In Notice of Motion No. 509 of 2008, he had prayed for directions to reinstate, pending the petition. This Notice of Motion also came to be dismissed on 24/2/2010 by a detailed order passed by the Division Bench. The petitioner came with Notice of Motion No. 156 of 2010 with the prayer for recall of the order dated 24/2/2010 and for restoration of Notice of Motion No. 509 of 2008 so as to be heard and decided afresh. This review application came to be dismissed on 21/6/2010. 5. It is thus clear that the reliefs prayed for in the petition are for quashing and setting aside the departmental enquiry proceedings, the removal order dated 28/3/2007 as well as the Appellate order dated 28/8/2007 and the consequential benefits like promotion etc. 6. On 17/12/2009 this petition was directed to be listed for final hearing peremptorily on 8/1/2010 and every time thereafter the petitioner has come out with some Notice of Motion or Chamber Summons and does not show interest in proceeding with the final hearing. In the last order passed by us on 21/6/2010, we had directed the petition to be heard peremptorily today and instead of proceeding with the final hearing, this 5 os-nmw-411-10 Notice of Motion has been filed for almost identical reliefs which have been either turned down in earlier Notices of Motion or they are reliefs of final nature which are required to be considered in the petition. 7. Hence, we do not find any merit in the prayers set out in this Notice of Motion and, therefore, it stands rejected. 8. The petitioner prays for time to engage a counsel to argue Writ Petition No. 2033 of 2007. We grant, by way of last chance, four weeks time to engage a counsel. Writ Petition No. 2033 of 2007 be listed on 25/8/2010 peremptorily at 3.00 p.m. for final hearing. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)