9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... W.P.Nos.300 to 303 of 2014. The said Writ Petition was allowed by an order dated 17.04.2014 and thereafter another writ petition was filed in W.P.No.23785 of 2014 which also came to be allowed by an order dated 03.09.2014. The relevant paragraph in W.P.No.23785 of 2014 reads as under:- "5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for a fresh consideration. The respondent shall furnish a copy of the report dated 03.06.2013 within a week of a receipt of a copy of this order. Within two weeks of receipt of a copy of the report, the petitioner shall file their objections to the proposal. Thereafter, the respondent shall give an opportunity of hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is ought to furnished to me within one week from the copy of judgement dated 03.09.2014, this implied me that you have no valid reasons to call for applicant and closed the subject matter. Now raising this issue after limitation is breach of the order of High Court of Chennai. I kindly inform that until I receive the report which the Honourable High Court mentioned I am not in position to raise the objections for personal hearing offered." 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has now passed impugned order without furnishing the copy of the report which was directed to be furnished by this Court by the second mentioned order in W.P.No.23785 of 2014. 6. It is submitted that the respondent has also not considered any of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by the respondent which is challenged in this writ petition was not based on the aforesaid report which was directed to be furnished. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned order passed by the respondent on merits. 13. That apart, it is noticed that the petitioner was given ample opportunities to furnish reply and appear for the personal hearing. Instead the petitioner merely stated that the report has not been furnished and therefore file should be closed. Such closure of file cannot be allowed. 14. The petitioner did not take advantage of the personal hearing afforded by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned order stating that the impugned order is either a non-speaking or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
