2012 (12) TMI 989

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... R AMIT LADDHE, ADVOCTE No. 1 For the Respondent(s): MS AMEE YAJNIK, ADVOCATE No. 1 - 4 (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Heard learned advocates for the parties for final disposal of the petition. Petitioners have approached this Court with a limited prayer of protecting the petitioners' interest till the revision petition pending with the Government is decided. Whatever be the other .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... petitioners have not challenged the appellate order dated 9­1­2009 when such order was already quashed by the High Court in its judgment dated 23­9­2009. Counsel further submitted that the Commissioner also observed that the order of the revisional authority was not in conformity with the High Court directions. He further submitted that the revisional order has become final and not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... shy;7­2012 from the petitioners. Direct Service is permitted." The above order is self­-speaking. The case, in our opinion, is such where the recovery pursuant to the appellate order of the Commissioner should not be permitted at least till the revisions petitions are decided by the Government. Ordered accordingly. In view of the facts emerging from the record, it would not be necessary .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X