1 44311 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY vgm CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 443 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s Anand Shyam Narayan Singh ...Respondent AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1732 OF 2011 Anand Shyam Narayan Singh ...Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P., for the Applicant in the Application and Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. Shaikh Husen i/by Mr. Amin Solkar for the Petitioner Mr. M.V. Holmagi for Original Respondent No. 4 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND P.D. KODE, JJ DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 P.C.:- Heard the learned A.P.P. for the applicant, Mr. Solkar for the original writ petitioner and Mr. Holmagi for respondent No. 4. 2 44311 2. This application is filed by the A.P.P., who had occasion to appear before the Court on 25th August, 2011. On that date, the counsel for the petitioner made statement that the departmental enquiry against the concerned officer is in progress, for which reason, he would not pursue the writ petition. On the basis of the said statement, the petition was allowed to be withdrawn. 3. However, the learned A.P.P. inadvertently failed to invite attention of the Court to the earlier orders passed by our predecessors on 12th and 28th July, 2011. If those orders had been brought to our notice, we would not have accepted the request of the writ petitioner to allow him to withdraw the petition. 4. We find force in the stand taken by the learned A.P.P. In the application, several other aspects have been referred to, which, in our opinion, need not be addressed in the present order. Insofar as merits of the grounds, on which the writ petition ought to proceed or appropriate order to be passed therein, the same will be considered in the writ petition. 3 44311 5. The counsel for respondent No. 4 was at pains to persuade us that this application is one more attempt of the petitioner and the officers of the Police Department of the original respondent / applicant to embroil respondent No. 4 in frivolous matters. As aforesaid, it is not necessary for us to go into that question in the present application. It will be open to respondent No. 4 to file reply in the writ petition, as may be advised, which question will be decided on its own merits. For the time being, we are confining this order to consider whether the order passed on 25th August, 2011 needs to be recalled. We have no hesitation in taking the view that, for the reason recorded in the speaking orders passed by our predecessors dated 12th and 28th July, 2011, the request made by the petitioner on 25th August, 2011, without inviting our attention to those orders, was completely misplaced and improper. Thus, the prayer of the petitioner to allow him to withdraw the writ petition cannot be accepted. 6. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we recall the order dated 25th August, 2011, and restore the writ petition to the file to its original number, to be proceeded on its own merits. As aforesaid, it will be open to respondent No. 4 to file affidavit in the writ petition, as may be advised, including to assail the action initiated against respondent 4 44311 No. 4 by the Department. All questions raised therein will be decided on their own merits. 7. Application is disposed of on the above terms. 8. Restored writ petition be now listed on 8 th November, 2011 under caption ‘Directions’. Respondent No. 4 may file affidavit on or before 15th October, 2011. P.D. KODE, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.