AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Panda, learned advocate led by Mr. Nanda, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of applicants, who are opposite party nos.2 and 3 in the writ petition. Mr. Panda submits, the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 24th August, 2022, without hearing his clients. The order was subsequently modified on 14th September, 2022.
He submits, Union of India and his clients being Rourkela Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) are separate entities inasmuch as his clients are a public limited company having its own panel of counsels.
Mr. Gochhayat, learned advocate, Central Government Counsel appears on behalf of Union of India and on query from Court submits, there was omission on part of the Central Government Counsel, who had appeared on 22nd July, 2022, to point out that SAIL had their separate panel.
It is clear that applicants went unheard though were opposite party nos.2 and 3, when order dated 24th August, 2022 as modified on 14th September, 2022 were made, disposing of the writ petition. In the circumstances, there appears to be good ground made out for recalling of said orders.
Writ petitioner, in spite of notice issued on the application, is not represented though name of learned advocate engaged has been reflected in the list.
Orders dated 24th August, 2022 as modified on 14th September, 2022, disposing of the writ petition, are recalled.
The application is disposed of.
The writ file be placed before the Bench having assignment.
…………………………….