Supreme Court of India
SHIVAJI ATMAJI & ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1986 INSC 18
- Decided
- 14 February 1986
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- A P SEN
Holding
The dismissal orders were valid as the reasons for dispensing with an inquiry were recorded in the orders, and the use of cyclostyled orders did not amount to a total non‑application of mind.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined the dismissal of two police officers, Shivaji Atmaji Sawant and Namdeo Jairam Velankar, who were terminated under sections 25(1) and 25(2) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, invoking clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The appellants contended that the dismissals were void because no charge‑sheet was served, no departmental inquiry was held, the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry were not recorded, and the cyclostyled orders demonstrated a total non‑application of mind. The Court held that the dismissal orders themselves set out the reasons for dispensing with an inquiry, satisfying the constitutional requirement, and that cyclostyled orders do not per se indicate non‑application of mind where the facts justify collective action. It further observed that the appellants had statutory remedies under section 27 of the Act and the Bombay Police (Punishments & Appeals) Rules, 1956, but the appeal periods had lapsed; nevertheless, the Court directed the Inspector‑General of Police to entertain a revision application with condoned delay. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed, with a directive for revision and a note that the parties may avail themselves of a government circular for alternative employment.
Issues considered
- The validity of dismissal without a charge‑sheet and departmental inquiry under section 25 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
- Whether the reasons for dispensing with an inquiry were duly recorded as required by clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2).
- Whether cyclostyled dismissal orders constitute a total non‑application of mind.
- The availability and limitation periods of appeal and revision remedies under section 27 of the Act and the 1956 Rules.
Legislation cited
Subjects
dismissalpolice disciplinary actionArticle 311(2) second provisonon‑application of mindcyclostyled ordersappeal under section 27revisionconstitutional law
Judgment
300
A
SHIVA.JI A'.IHl.JI SAllAHr & Allll..
V•
FEBRUARY 14, 1986
B [A.P, SEN AND D.P. MADON., JJ.]
Bombay Poli~e Act, 1951 :
Sections 25 anci 27 - Bombay Police Strike of
constabulary - Appellants - Members of police force - Inciting
c others to commit violence - Dismissed from service - Charge
sheet not served, enquiry not held - 'Reasons' why not practi-
cable to hold enquiry - Served separately - Dismissal order -
Whether valid. . .
The appellants were llll!llbers of the Bombay Police Force
D and office-bearers of the Maharashtra Police Karucllari Y
Sanghtana. They were diallissed. from service without iaauing
any charge-sheet and without holding any iuquiry into the act•
of alleged miscouduct committed by them under silb-sa. (l) and
(2) of a. 25 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 reacl with cl.(b)
of the secoud proviso to Art. 311(2) of the Constitutiou. It
E was stated that they slong with other members of the llomllay
Police Force had been instigating others in acts of iusubordi-
natlon and iudiscipline and to withdraw from their lawful
duties, inciting thea to violence any 1111tiny, joining rioting
mobs and participating in arson, looting and other criaiaal
acts, wilfully disobeying orders of superior officers and that
F these acts had created a situation in lloabay whereby the -\- ..,_
normal functioning of the police force had been rendered
difficult and impossible and that in view of these facts and
circumstances, any attempt to bold a departments! inquiry by
serving .a written charge-sheet and following the procedure
laid ,down in the Bombay Police (Punishments & Appesl) Rulea,
G 1956 would be frustrated by the collective action of these
persons and it was therefore not practicable to bold such an
enquiry. The appellants assailed their disllissal from aervice
in the High Court by petitions under Art· 226 of the Consti;_
tution but the High Court declined to interfere. In appesl, it 'rl
was conteuded on behslf of the appellants that ~be hlpngned '
H orders of dismissal suffered from a tots! non-application of
SHIVAJI ATMA.JI v. STATE 301
A
~ mind inasmuch as (a) identical orders were passed against 43
other members of the Constabulary and all ·the orders were
cyclostyled; and (b) the reasons for dispensing with the
enquiry did not accompany the order of dismissal.
Dismissing the a~peals, B
lllWl: 1.1 The recording of reasons for dispensing with
an inquiry is a condition precedent_ to the applicability of
.._ cl. (b) of the second proviso to Art. 311(2) of the Consti-
tution; and, if such reasons are not recorded in writing, the
order dispensing with the inquiry and the order of penalty
following thereupon would both be void and unconstitutional. c
If the order of dismissal under cl.(b) of the second proviso
to Art. 311 (2) imposes a penalty without furnishing reasons,
it would be bad and would be required to be struck down.
[308 D-E; F]
Satyavir Singh and Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Ors., D
" [1985] 4 s.c.c. 252 and Union of India & Aar. v. Tnlsiraa
Patel & Ors. connected 11&tters, [ 1985] 3 s.c.c. 398, followed.
1.2 In the instant case, however, the impugned ord11rs of
dismissal served on each of the appellants itself sets out the
reasons why it was not reasonably practicable to hold an E
inquiry; and, the "reasons" served separately merely amplified
and elaborated what had been stated in the impugned order.
There· is therefore no substance in the contention that the
reasons for dispensing with the inquiry did not accompany the
order. [308 G; 309 B; 308 D]
F
.. 2.1 Normally, the passing of several cyclostyled orders
would, prims facie, imply non-application of mind but this is
not a rule of universal application and it would depend upon
the facts and circumstances of each case whether the impugned
order suffers from such infirmity. [307 E-F]
G
2.2 In a situation where the acts alleged were of a
large group acting collectively with the common object of
coercing the authority, and it is not possible to parti-
cularize the acts of each individual member of the group,
!Ill' cyclostyled orders passed against the members of the group
would not be vitiated by non-application of mind. (308 A-Bl H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 s.c.R.
A
3.1 The appellants were not without remedy against the •
impui;ned order of dismissal from servic~. They had the remedy
of an appeal under s. 27 of the Bo11bay Police Act, which under
r. 11 of the Bombay Police (Punishments & Appeal) Rules had to
be preferred within two months· from the service of the order
of dismissal. (310 A-Bl
3.2 Further, they also had the right to prefer a
revision to the Inspector-<;eneral of Police, Maharashtra under
sub-r. ( 1) of r. 17 within a period of two months as· prescribed .~
under sub-r.(2) thereof. (310 C-E]
c 3,3 Looking to the circumstances that the appellants had
been dismissed from service as a punitive measure for their
activating insurrec;tion among the Bombay Police Force, the
Court as a special case directed the Inspecto~neral of
Police to entertain a revision under sub-r.(2) of a. 17,
although the period of limitation for filing such revision had
D expired, and to condone the delay and hear and dispose of such .,.,
revision on merits. [310 F-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4041 of
1982.
E
From the Judgement and Order dated 1.12.1982 of the
Bombay High Court ill W.P. No. 1976 of 1982.
AND
Civil Appeal No. 4363 of 1985.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.1982 of the -•
Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 501 -A of 1982.
V.N. Ganpule for the Appellant in C.A. No. 4041 of 1982.
G V.M. Tarkunde, V.N. Ganpule for the Appellant in C.A.
No. 4363 of 1985.
S.B. Bhasme, M.N. Shroff and A.S. Bhasme for the
Respondents.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHIVAJI.ATMAJI v. STATE [MADON, J.] 303
A
.; MADON, J. The Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4041 of
1982, Shivaji Atmaji Sawant, was a Police Constable in the
Bombay City Police Force attached to the Bandra Police Station
in Bombay. He was governed by the Bombay Police Act, 1951
(Bombay Act No.XXII of 1951). By an. order dated August 22,
1982, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, he
B
was dismissed from service, without a charge-sheet having been
issued to him and without any inquiry being held with respect
to the misconduct alleged against him. The said order of dis-
-I missal was passed under section 25(1) of the Bombay Police Act
read with clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2)
of the Constitution of India. The writ petition filed by
Sawant challenging the said order of dismissal was dismissed
by the Bombay High Court. He has thereupon approached this
c
C<>urt in appeal by way of Special Leave granted by this Court.
The Appellant in Civil Appeal No.4363 of 1985, Namdeo
Jairam Velankar, was a Head Constable in Armed Batch No.645
__, and was posted at Aurangabad. He too was governed by the
D
Bombay Police Act. He was also dismissed in the same way as
Sawant by an order dated August 22, 1982, passed by the
Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad, under section 25(2) of
the Bombay Police Act read with clause (b) of the second
proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. He had also
filed a writ petition before the Aurangabad Bench of the
E
Bombay High Court which was dismissed and he too has approach-
ed this Court in appeal by way ·of Special Leave granted by
this Court.
Section 25 of the Bombay Police Act specif !es the
·
-~
officers who are entitled to punish the members of the Bombay
F
.., Police Force. Under clause (b) of the second proviso to
Article 311(2) of the Constitution, an authority empowered to
dismiss or remove a civil servant or reduce him in rank is
authorized to dispense with the inquiry provided in clause (2)
of Article 311, if it is satisfied that for some reason to be
recorded by it in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to
hold such inquiry. In the case of Union of India and Anr. v.
Tulsiram Patel lllld other c:olllli!cted matters, [1985] 3 s.c.c.
398, a Constitution Bench of this Court has considered in
great detail the scope and effect of Articles 309, 310 and 311
,...( of the Constitution and particularly of the second proviso to
Article 311(2). The conclusions reached by this Court in
H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 s.c.R.
A
Tulsiram Patel's Case have been summarized in Satyavir Singh i.
and others etc. v. Union of India and Ors., [1985] 4 s.c.c.
252. In view of this decision the only contention raised
before us at the hearing of these Appeals was that the
impugned orders of dismissal suffered from a total non-appli-
cation of mind. The facts on the record, however, completely
B belie this contention and we will now proceed to narrate them.
Article 33 of the Constitution empowers Parliament by
law to determine to what extent any of the rights conferred by ~
Part III of the Constitution (that is, the Fundamental
Rights), shall in their application inter alia to the Forces
c charged with the maintenance of public order be restricted or
abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties
and the maintenance of discipline among them. In pursuance of
this power Parliament has enacted the Police Forces
(Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 (Act No.33 of 1966). As
shown by the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the long
D
title of the Act, the object of the Act is to provide for the y
restriction of certain Fundamental Rights in their application
to the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of
public order so as to ensure the proper discharge of their
duties and maintenance of discipline among them. Under section
1(3), the said Act is to come into force on such date as may
·E be appointed in this behalf by notification in the Official
Gazette, in a Union Territory, by the Central Government and
in a State, by the Government of that State. It was brought
into force in the State of Maharashtra with effect from July
15, 1979, by Notification No. PPF. 0229-PLO-III dated July 10,
1979, published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated
July 26, 1979, Part IVA at page 502. Clause (a) of section 2 ~
F
of the said Act defines the expression "member of a police- "'
force" as meaning "any person appointed or enrolled under any
enactment specified in the Schedule". Aioong the enactments so
specified is the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Under section 3 of
the said Act of 1966, no member of a Police Force is, without
G the express sanction of the Central Government or of the pres-
cribed authority, to be a member of, or be associated in any
way with, any trade union, labour union, political associa-
tion, or with any class of trade union, labour unions or
political associations, or be a member of, or be associated in
any way with any other society, institution, association or )"I
organization that is not recognized as part of the Force of
SHIVA.JI A1MAJI v. STATE [MADON, J.] 305
A
which he is a member or is not of a purely social. recrea-
'! tional or religious nature. Further, a member of a Police
Force is prohibited from participating in or addressing any
meeting or taking part in any demonstration organized by any
body of persons for any political purposes· or for such other
purposes as may be prescribed by rules made under the said B
Act. Rule 3 of the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights)
Rules, 1966, provides as follows :
"3. Additional purposes for which a lll!lllber of a
police-force mt to participate in, or address, 1111'1
meting, etc.
c
No member of a police-force shall participate in,
or address any meeting or take part .in any deioons-
tration organised by any body of persons -
(a) ror the purpose of protesting against any of
the provisions of the .\ct of these rules or any D
other rules made under the Act; or
(b) for the purpose of protesting against any
disciplinary action taken or proposed to be taken
against him or against any other member or members
of a police-force; or E
(c) for any purpose connected with any matter per-
taining to his rem.ineration or other conditions of
service or his conditions of work or his living
conditions or the remuneration, other conditions of
service, conditiol)S of work or living conditions, F
·-'·
r or any other member or members of a police-force;
Provided that nothing contained in clause (b) shall pre-
a
clude member of a police-force from participating in a meet-
ing convened by an association of which he is a member and
which has been accorded sanction under sub-section (1) of G
section 3 of the Act, - where such meeting is in pursuance of,
or for the furtherance of the object of such association."
Under section 4, any person who contravenes the provi-
~ions of se.ction 3 commits an offence and is liable, without
prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, H
306 SUPRl!ME COURT REPORTS [1986 J 1 s.c.R.
A
to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend "
to two years or with fine which 11111y extend to Rs.2000 or with
both.
With a view to give members of the Bombay Police Force an
opportunity to ventilate their grievances with respect to
B service conditions and allied matters the Government of
Maharashtra announced that it would permit the nembera of the
Force to form associations at the State level as well as at
Unit level. The authority to grant recognition to such asso-
ciations was the Inspector General of Police,' Maharashtra ~
State. Before any recognition was given, associations were
c formed and office-bearers elected.. The association at the
State level was the Maharashtra. Police Karamchari Sanghtana
and at the Greater Bombay level was the Maharashtra Police
Karamchari Sanghtana, Greater Bombay. The Inspector-General of
Police granted recognition to these associations ty his order
dated March 20, 1982, on conditions en that the members
D should not resort to strike or withhold their services or
otherwise delay the performance of their duties in any manner, "'
(2) that the Association should not resort to any coercive
nethod of agitation for obtaining redressal of grievances, and
(3) that the Association should not do anything whl.ch may
affect the efficiency of the Force or undermine its
E discipline.
Sawant is alleged to have · taken the lead along with one
S.D. l!ohite in forming the Greater Bombay Association and
starting its activities. It is further alleged that from the
inception of the activities of this Association, the principal
F off ice-bearers and leaders started spreading an atmosphere of
indiscipline, culminating in the members of the Police Force, .ji... _
including Sawant, wearing black bands and badges on the
Independence Day of 1982, namely, August 15, 1982. Consequent-
ly, the State Government suspended the recognition of the said
Association for a period of three mo11ths· This resulted in
G 'Bombay in a strike of the police constabulary and widespread
rioting, arson, lotting and other acts amounting to nutiny
from August 18, 1982. The situation became so serious that on
the very day of the outbreak of these incidents, namely,
August 18, 1982, military and para-military forces had to be
summoned to deal with .the nembers of the Police Force who had~
H rioted and mutinied and even then it took some days for
SHIVAJI ATMAJI v. STATE [MAOON, J.] 307
A
• normalcy to be restored. The events which took place on and
from August 18, 1982, are not disputed. In fact, in his
Petition for· Special Leave to Appeal Sawant has himself
described them as "deplorable incidents".
Three contentions were urged on behalf of Sawant in order B
to substantiate the contention that the impugned• order of
dismissal passed against him was without any application of
mind. The first contention was that Sawant was arrested in the
early hours of August 18, 1982, and, therefore, did not and
-· could not have taken part in the incidents of violence, arson,
looting and D1Jtiny which took place on and from that date.
Assuming it is so, Sawant is alleged to have been one of the c
active instigators and leaders who were responsible for. the
creation of such a serious situation which .rendered all normal
functioning of the Police Force and normal life in the City of
Bombay impossible. As pointed out by this Court in Satyavir
Singh and. Ora. v. Union of India and others (at page 287) . it
D
... is not necessary that the disciplinary authority should wait
until incidents take place in which ·physical injury is caused
to others before taking action under clause (b) of the second
proviso. to Article 311(2). A person who incites others to
coomit violence is as guilty, if not more so, than the one who
indulges in violence, for the one who indulges in violence may
not have- done so without the instigation of the other. The E
second contention was that identical orders were passed
against forty-three other members of the constabulary and that
all these orders , including the one served upon Sawant , were
cyclostyled. Where several cyclostyled orders are Pl!SSed, it
would prims facie show non-application of mind but this is not
~··a universal rule and would depend upon the facts and circwn- F
_,... . stances of ·each case. In Tolsir1111 l'at;el 's Case cyclostyled
· orders were served upon several members of the Unit of the
) Central Industrial Security Force posted at Bokaro with the
names of the individual members filled in •. Rejecting a similar
contention raised in that case, this Court observed (at page ·
520) : G
"It was said that the impugned orders did not set
out the particular acts done by each of the members
of the CIS Force in.respect of whom dismissal order
was made, and these were merely cyclostyled orders
with the names of individual members of the CIS H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 1 s.c.R.
A
Force filled in. Here was a case very much like a •
case under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The acts alleged were not of any particular
individual acting by himself. These were acts of a
large group acting collectively with the comnon
object of coercing those in charge of the adminis-
' tration. of the CIS Force and the Government in
B
order to obtain recognition for their association
and to concede their demands. It is not possible in
a situation such as this to particularize the acts ~
of each individual member who participated in the
commission of these acts. The participation of each
individual may be of greater or lesser degree but
c the acts of each individual contributed to the
creation of a situation in which a security force
itself became a security risk."
The third contention was that the reasons for dispensing with
D
the inquiry did not accompany the order. In 'l'alsiram Patel's·
Case this Court held that the recording of the reason for
,..
·dispensing with the inquiry is a condition precedent to the
application of clause (b) of the second proviso and if such
reasons are not recorded in writing, the order dispensing with
the inquiry and the order of penalty following thereupon would
both be void and unconstitutional. The Court also held that
E
though it was not necessary that the reasons should find a
place in the final order imposing penalty, it would be. advis-
able to record them in the final order ,so as to avoid an alle-
gation that the reasons were not recorded in writing before
passing the final order but were subsequently fabricated. What
had happened in Sawant's Case was that either along with the a...
F
order or soon thereafter reasons in writing for dispensing
with the inquiry were served upon Sawant. A perusal of the
reasons shows that they were recorded later. Were the impugned
order of dismissal one which merely imposed a penalty, it
would have been bad and would require to be struck down in
view of the decisions in 'l\llsiram Patel's Case. The position
G
is, however, different. The impugned order of dismissal itself
sets out the reasons why it was not reasonably practicable to
hold the inquiry. It is stated in the said order that some
members of the Bombay City Police Force, including Sawant, had
been instigating others to indulge in acts of insubordinati~
and indiscipline and were instigating them to withdraw from
H
SHIVAJI A'lMAJI v. STATE [MADON, J.] 309
A
their lawful duties, inciting them to violence and 1111tiny,
~· joining rioting mobs and participating_ in arson, looting and
other criminal acts and were willfully disobeying orders of
. their superior officers and that these acts had created a
situation whereby the normal functioning of the Force in
Bombay had been rendered difficult and impossible, and that in
B
view of these facts· and circumstances, any attempt to hold a
departmental inquiry by serving a written charge-sheet and
following the procedure laid down l.n the Bombay P0lice
(Punishments and Appeals) Rules, 1956, would be frustrated by
the collective action of those persons and it was, there(ore,
not practicable to hold .guch an inquiry. The "reasons_" served
separately merely amplified and elaborated what had been
stated in the impugned order. There is thus no substance in
c
any of the contentions· advanced in the case of Sawant and it
must be held that clause (b) of the second proviso to Article
311 (2) was rightly applied in his case.
We now turn to the case of Velankar. He was the President
D
·--, of the Aurangabad Branch of the said Association. He was
dismissed along with four other members of the Force posted,at
Aurangabad. The order of dismissal in his case sets 011t in
detail the acts of misconduct alleged against him, the
situation which was prevailing in Aurangabad and the reasons
why it was not reasonably practicable to hold a disciplin1uy
E
inquiry against him. Briefly summarized, when the violence
broke out in Bombay on August 18, 1982, a .similar situation
was attempted to be brought about in Aurangabad by Velankar
and the four others who were dismissed along with him.
Velankar is said to have led a procession on August 21, 1982,
~ which procession shouted provocative slogans, detnanding the
F
release of these policemen in Bombay who had been arrested and
-- demanding their reinstatement and revocation of orders of
suspension passed against others in Bombl\Y• Apart from these
acts being in contravention of clause (b) of· Rule 3 of the ·
Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Rules, 1966, swift
action .was necessary were the history· of Boinbay not .to be
G
repeated in Aurangabad. The authorities could not be expected
to. wait until houses and. shops in Aurangabad were looted and
set on fire before taking steps to , put down the threatened
insurrection. In these circumstances, it cannot be saie that
~in the case of Velankar clause (b) of the second proviso to
~ <\rticle 311 (2) was wrongly applied. '
H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 1 S,C,R.
A
It is contended that both these Appellants are innocent
of the misconduct charged against them, lf so, they are not ~
Without any remedy. Under section 27 of the Bombay Police Act,
1951, an appeal lies: against an order of penalty. imposed upon
a member of the Police Force to such officer as the State
Government may specify by general or special order. The
B appellate authorities have been specified in Schedule U to
the Bombay Police (Punishments and Appeals) rules; 1956. Under
Rule 11, an appeal is to be filed within two months of the
date on which the Appellant was informed of the order appealed
against. The said Rule 11 confers upon the appellate autho- >-
rity, for good reasons shown, to extend the term for filing
c the appeal by six months. Rule 17 confers revisional juris-
diction upon the I11Spector-General of Polcie. Under sub-rule
(1) of Rule 17, th<! Inspector-General oL Police may, of his
own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of
any case in which an order, whether an original order or an
order in appeal, inflicting any punishment has been mode by
D any authority subordinate to him in the exercise of any power
conferred on such authority by the said Rules and in which an Y
appeal lies to him or an authority subordinate to him but such
appeal has not been made in accordance with the provisions of
the said Rules or if such appeal has been made, after the
appeal is decided by the appellate authority. Under sub-rule
E . ( 2) of Rule 17, an application for revieion is to be made
within two montha of the date on which the applicant wa&
informed of the order complained against. The Inspector-
General is, however, given the power, for good cause shown, to
relax that period.
F · Assuming for the sake of argument that Sawant and ·
Velankar were not guilty of the charges levelled against them, "'
-.;
they have a departmental remedy provided by the said Rules.
The period for fili1og an appeal has, however, expired and even
the time for extending that period has also expired. The
Appellants can, however, approach the Inspector-General of
G Police in. revision and the ends of justice would be met if we
direct the Inspector-General of Police to entertain such
applications for revision by relaxing the period of limitation
and hearing such applications on the merits.
We may also mention that by a Circular No. PSA 0283/POL~,.
H SA . dated July 5, 1984, the Government of Maharashtra, otl
humanitarian grounds as ~ part of the rehabilitation programne
SHIVA.JI A1MAJI v. STATE [MADON, J,] 311
A
4 ~f police personnel dismissed from service or whose services
were terminated in the wake of the police agitation which took
place in Allgust 1982, has. decided that they would be
considered for absorption in security jobs such as watchmen
etc. under the Maharashtra· State E~ectricity Board, Maharash-
tra State Road Transport Corporatic:ln, Maharashtra Agro-Indust~ B
ries Development Corporation, Agricultural Universities,
Research Stations, State Warehousing -Corporation, etc., and
that Wherever necessary, the age limits would be relaxed. in
~ respect of .·these ex-police...n for making their appoint...nts
which would be treated ail fresh appointments.
In the result, we dismiss both these Appeals, but direct C
that 1i1 case either of these two Appellants file an
applicatfon for revision to the Inspector-General of .Police,
Maharashtr:a State,. by Ajlril 15, .1986, the Inspector-General of
Police · shall condone the delay and · hear and dispose of the
said application on the ...rite. The Appellant in each of
f -, these Appeals may alao,. either without filing any application D
for revision cir after such application fails, apply to take
advantage of the said Circular No. PSA 0283/POLSA dated July
5, 1984; issued by the Govern...nt of Maharashtra. All interim
orders, if any; passed in these two Appeals wUl stand
vacated •.
E
The parties will bear and pay their own costs of these
two Appeals. .
~- • A.P.J. Appeals dismissed.
/
•
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "dismissal"Sign in to search