1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6951 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1526 OF 2001 Shaikh Liyakat s/o Shaikh Dildar ...Applicant VERSUS The Deputy Director, G.S.D.A. and others ...Respondents ..... Shri V.P.Golewar, advocate holding for Shri Pradeep Shahane, advocate for the applicant (orig.petitioner) Shri M.L.Dharashive, AGP for the respondents (orig.respondents) ..... Coram : Shrihari P. Davare, J. Dated : 15 th July, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1 The applicant has preferred the present application requesting to fix up Writ Petition No. 1526 of 2001 for final hearing at the earliest. 2 2 The applicant submits that he has filed Writ Petition No. 1526 of 2001 challenging the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court in Complaint ULP No. 165 of 1992 and the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court in Revision ULP No. 2 of 2001 thereby rejecting the claims of the applicant herein. This court has issued Rule accordingly and the respondents have already filed affidavit in reply and the matter is ready for final hearing. The applicant submits that he is very poor and out of service and, therefore, submitted that Writ Petition NO. 1526 of 2001 is required to be taken up for final hearing. 3 The applicant further submits that he has preferred Civil Application No. 6191 of 2002 as well as 2772 of 2003 earlier for fixing the date for final hearing in the said Writ Petition NO. 1526 of 2001 and the said both applications were allowed by this court and directions were issued to fix up the said Writ Petition in 3rd week of June, 2003 for final hearing. However, the said matter could not reach for final hearing at that time. Thereafter again the applicant preferred Civil Application for fixing up the date for final hearing and the matter was listed on 16.1.2007 and upon hearing the parties the matter was adjourned at the instance of learned Assistant Government Pleader for taking the instructions 3 on 20.2.2007 and again matter was adjourned at the request of learned Assistant Government Pleader for taking instructions, but thereafter the Board was discharged on 28.3.2005 with direction that the petition not to be treated as part heard. Hence, it is submitted that the said Writ Petition is required to be taken up for final hearing early. 4 Heard both the learned counsel for the parties. 5 Considering the rival submissions, the contents of the application speak for themselves that the applicant is out of service, and on earlier two occasions Civil Applications preferred by the applicant were allowed and directions were issued to take up the above referred Writ Petition for final hearing, but it could not reach for final hearing at that time; and again the applicant preferred Civil Application for fixing up the date for final hearing and the matter was listed on 16.1.2007 but came to be adjourned twice at the instance of learned Assistant Government Pleader, but consequently the Board came to be discharged on 28.3.2005 with direction that the petition not to be treated as part heard. Besides that, it is apparent that the Writ Petition is about 8 years old, and is required to be taken up for final hearing, and hence the present Civil Application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. 4 6 In the result, Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ thereof and Writ Petition No. 1526 of 2001 be fixed for final hearing in the week commencing from 14.9.2009. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. (Shrihari P. Davare, J.) dbm/ca6951.09