2016 (11) TMI 1396 - HC - Indian Laws

Correction of the typographical error - as contended that the date of listing of the appeal is 16.11.2016 and on account of the typographical error the same has been noted as 10.11.2016 also that counsel for the respondent had appeared not only for respondent no. 1 but also for respondent no. 3. - Held that - The order dated 26.10.2016 is corrected. The next date of the listing of the appeal is corrected to read as 16.11.2016 instead of 10.11.2016 and presence of Mr. Vikram Jetly advocate in the said order shall be read for respondent no. 1 and 3. Perusal of order sheet of the appeal shows that the final arguments in the appeal were concluded on 02.02.2016 and judgment was reserved. The judgment could not be delivered. Thereafter again arguments were heard on 26.07.2016 and the judgment was reserved.Thereafter the Chairman has since demitted office. The appeal is listed for hearing tomorrow i.e. 16.11.2016.

Summary

Issues: Correction of typographical error in the order dated 26.10.2016; Listing date of the appeal; Presence of counsel for respondent no. 1 and 3; Delay in delivering judgment; Direction for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

Correction of Typographical Error:
The judgment addresses an application seeking correction of a typographical error in the order dated 26.10.2016. The error pertained to the listing date of the appeal, which was incorrectly noted as 10.11.2016 instead of the correct date, which is 16.11.2016. Additionally, it was noted that the counsel for the respondent had appeared for both respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 3. Consequently, the order was corrected to reflect the accurate listing date of the appeal and the presence of the counsel for both respondents.

Delay in Delivering Judgment:
The order sheet of the appeal revealed that the final arguments were concluded on 02.02.2016, and the judgment was reserved but could not be delivered. Subsequently, arguments were heard again on 26.07.2016, and the judgment was once more reserved. The Chairman, however, demitted office in the interim. The appeal is scheduled for a hearing on 16.11.2016, with a directive for the appellate tribunal to dispose of the appeal promptly, preferably within three months from the conclusion of the final arguments.

Direction for Expeditious Disposal:
The judgment concludes by disposing of the writ petition and associated applications with the aforementioned directions. It emphasizes the need for expeditious disposal of the appeal, urging the appellate tribunal to resolve the matter swiftly, ideally within a three-month period following the final arguments. A copy of the order is directed to be provided dasti under the signature of the Court Master for compliance and reference.