2005 Supreme(SC) 1911
R. C. LAHOTI, G. P. MATHUR, P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
State of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Jeet S. Bisht – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: R.G. Padia, Sr. Adv., Javed M Rao, Pradeep Mishra, Pramod Dayal, (NP) Ashok K. Srivastava, (NP)
For the NCDRC Bar Asson. in WP 164/02 : M N Krishnamani, Sr. Adv. Ranji P Thomas, S K Sharma, V N Raghupathy, C K Sucharita, (NP).
For the Union of India : N N Goswami, Sr. Adv., Kiran Bhardwaj, S N Terdal, B K Prasad, (NP) B.V. Balaram Das, (NP).
For the State of Assam : Ms. Krishna Sarma, V K Sidharthan, Atul Kumar, Amrita Bhattacharya, Corporate Law Group, Advs.
For the State of Arunachal Pradesh :Anil Shrivastav and Saurabh Shrivastava, Advocates
For the State of Andhra Pradesh : D Bharathi Reddy, B Vikas, T V Ratnam, (NP)
For the State of Bihar :Kumar Rajesh Singh and B.B. Singh, Advocates
For the State of Chhatisgarh : Suparna Srivastava, Deepti Singh, Rajesh Srivastava, Prakash Shrivastava, (NP)
For the NCT Delhi :Ashok Bhan, Kiran Bhardwaj and Anil Katiyar, Advocates
For the UTs of Daman & Diu : Sunita Sharma, Lakshadweep, Dadra & Nagar D S Mahra, Haveli, Andaman & Nicobar
For the State of Gujarat :Hemantika Wahi and Monika Bapna, Advocates
For the State of Goa :A Subhashini, Advocate
For the State of Haryana : Kavita Wadia, (NP)
For the State of Himachal Pradesh :- J.S. Attri, Addl. Adv. Genl.
For the State of J & K : Anis Suhrawardy, (NP)
For the State of Jharkhand : Ashok Mathur, (NP)
For the State of Kerala :K.R. Sasiprabhu, MKS Menon and G. Indira, Advocates.
For the State of Manipur :K.H. Nobin Singh, Advocate.
For the State of Mizoram :Hemantika Wahi and Monika Bapna, Advocates.
For the Govt. of Mizoram :K.N. Madhusoodhanan and R Sathish, Advocates.
For the State of Maharashtra :- S S Shinde, Mukesh K. Giri, Advocates.
For the State of Madhya Pradesh :Satish K. Agnihotri and Rohit Singh, Advocates.
For the State of Meghalaya : Ranjan Mukherjee, (NP).
For the State of Nagaland :Upamanyu Hazarika, Satya Mitra and Sumita Hazarika, Advocates
For the State of Orissa :Janaranjan Das, Swetaketu Mishra, Moushumi Gahlot and Smruti Mohanty, Advocates
For the Govt of Pondicherry :V.G. Pragasam, Advocate
For the State of Punjab :R.K. Rathore, Addl. Adv. Genl. S. Krishnaraj and Arun K Sinha, Advocates
For the State of Rajasthan :Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl. Genl. Naveen Kr. Singh and Shivangi, Advocates
For the State of Sikkim :Brijender Chahar, Jyoti Chahar and Ashok Mathur, Advocates
For the State of Tripura :Rituraj Biswas, Gopal Singh, Advocates
For the State of Tamilnadu :R Gopalakrishnan, Abhay Kumar, S.N. Jha, Subramonium Prasad, Advocates
For the State of Uttaranchal : Rachana Srivastava, Addl. Adv. Genl.
For the State of UP : R.G. Padia, Sr. Adv., Javed M. Rao, Pradeep Mishra, Pramod Dayal, (NP), Ashok K. Srivastava, (NP)
For the State of W.B. :Tara Chandra Sharma and Neelam Sharma, Advocates
For the UT Chandigarh :Kamini Jaiswal and Shomila Bakshi, Advocates
For the Applicants in IAs 8 :Shobha Dixit, Sr. Adv., V P Sharma, M.P.S Tomar, Sandhya Goswami and Malvika Trivedi, Advocates
For the Applicant in IA 15/05 : Ravindra Kumar, N.S. Bisht, (NP) V. Sudeer, Balaji Srinivasan, MBRS Raju, S. Sunita, S. Sachin, J.B. Ravi, Riju Raj Jamawal, M. Sailaja, S. Srinivasan, Rajeev Sharma, (NP) Sanjay R Hegde, (NP) Radha Shyam Jena, (NP) J.P. Dhanda, (NP) Revathy Raghavan, (NP) T Mahipal, (NP) Pallav Shishodia, (NP)
ORDER :
I.A. No. 8/2003 in SLP(C) No. 6928/1999
1. The learned senior counsel for the applicant has pressed in particular relief (f) sought for in the application. The learned counsel for the State of U.P. states that a decision in this regard has been taken favourable to the applicant and it is awaiting clearance at the highest level. Six weeks's time is allowed for the purpose of finalising the a decision and bringing the same on record.
2. The attention of the learned counsel for the State of U.P. is invited to the order dated 17.1.2005 made on I.A. Nos. 12 and 13. The learned counsel for the State states that the appointed time of four months is yet to expire and the decision will be taken within that much time and then brought on record through an affidavit.
I.A. No. 11/2003
3. To come up for hearing with W.P.(C) No. 164/2002.
I.A. No. 15/2005
4. Issue notice to the State of Uttaranchal.
WP(C) No. 164/2002
5. The matter would need to be heard afresh in view of several subsequent developments. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be allowed liberty of filing a fresh and complete statement setting out the relevant facts and statistics, the problematic area
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
