Case: Shantha Sinha &amp; Another Vs. Union of India &amp; Another

1. We have heard Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Vipin Nair, Mr. P.B. Suresh, Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, and learned Attorney General assisted by Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Mr. Arghya Sengupta, Ritesh Kumar and Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India.2. Learned Attorney General has raised preliminary objections for consideration of interim reliefs. Firstly, that similar reliefs were claimed in another Writ Petition No.797 of 2016 which were not granted though pressed and that the petitioner therein subsequently filed interim application on 11.03.2017 but did not take steps to get the same listed before the Court for reasons best known to him. He further submits that the nature of interim reliefs sought, ought to be considered by the Constitution Bench as was the case while considering the application for modification filed by Union of India in W.P. (C) No.494/2012, vide order dated 15.10.2015. Additionally, he submits that the Division Bench on 09.05.2017 issued rule nisi and had observed that this writ petition be tagged along with W.P. (Civil) No. 494/2012, which is already slated to be heard before the Constitution Bench.3. During the course of hearing our attention was invited to the fact that the application filed in other pending Writ Petition (C) No.797/2016, involve similar issues as will be considered in the present application for interim relief. If that is so, in our considered opinion it is appropriate that all the applications involving overlapping issues are heard together analogously to avoid multiplicity of hearing on the same subject matter.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]3. During the course of hearing our attention was invited to the fact that the application filed in other pending Writ Petition (C) No.797/2016, involve similar issues as will be considered in the present application for interim relief. If that is so, in our considered opinion it is appropriate that all the applications involving overlapping issues are heard together analogously to avoid multiplicity of hearing on the same subject matter.