Hari Singh Yadav vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard. The grievance of the petitioner is that his case is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of (Anil Bhatt and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) 2012 (2) MPLJ 82. The said judgment is followed by the Division Bench recently in W.A. No. 185/2013 dated 06.05.2013. Shri Raghuvanshi submits that those judgments are judgment in Rem and not in personam and, therefore, the respondents should have implemented and extended its benefit to all similarly situated persons. He submits that his representation Annexure P/3 be directed to be decided by respondents No. 3 to 6 by taking into account the said judgment in the case of Anil Bhatt (supra).

Shri Newaskar has no objection to this innocuous prayer.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to examine the representation of the petitioner Annexure P/3 by taking into account the judgment of this court in Anil Bhatt (supra) and pass reasoned order within 90 days. Outcome shall be communicated to the petitioner. It is expected that if petitioner is found similarly statued qua Anil Bhatt, the principle of parity would be made applicable in the case of petitioner as well. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of. It be noted that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.