Tripura High Court
WRIT PETITION 775 of 2022 on 20 April 1987
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
IA No. 1 of 2023
In
WP(C) No.775 of 2022
The Union of India and 2 Ors.
---Applicant(s)
Versus Sri Shekhar Ghosh ---Respondent(s) For the Applicant(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Dy. SGI For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
Sri Shekhar Ghosh
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Order
19.05.2023
The Union of India i.e., ICAR has filed the instant petition under Chapter VIII (B) (14) of the High Court Rules to modify the order dated 13.09.2022, when this Court had passed the following order:- “Heard Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned Assistant SG appearing for the respondent- ICAR.
Under notification dated 20th April, 1987, ICAR is absolutely controlled by the Central Government. For this reason, this court has no jurisdiction.
The petitioner may approach Central Administrative Tribunal. Till the petitioner approaches the tribunal, his present status shall not be disturbed.
With this observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed.”
Page 1 of 2
Mr. Majumder, learned Dy. SGI has submitted that till today, the petitioner has not approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. According to Chapter VIII (B) (14) of the High Court Rules, if there is no specific time mentioned for compliance in any writ order, then according to Rules, within 2(two months) the order has to be complied with. Chapter VIII (B) (14) of the High Court Rules may be re-produced here-in-below:
“14. Compliance of order passed in writ petition:
The order passed in writ, either interlocutory or final order, unless the same is modified, shall be complied with/implemented in two months from the date of receipt of communication of the order wherever there is no specific time mentioned for compliance.”
This Court had passed the order to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal on 13.09.2022. But, till today, the writ petitioner i.e. respondent herein has not approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. By now, two months have already been elapsed and the order has not been complied with.
In view of this under Chapter VIII (B) (14) of the High Court Rules, the time frame for two months for complying the order is lapsed over and the order dated 13.09.2022 has no force in the eye of law.
Accordingly, the order dated 13.09.2022 is modified and it is held that the order dated 13.09.2022 has no force in the eye of law so far it relates to the liberty given by this Court to the respondent-petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal as regards the continuation of the petitioner in the post he holds now.
With the aforesaid order, the I.A. stands allowed and disposed.
JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…