Kamal Singh Vs. Union of India

Kamal Singh vs Union of India

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 03, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1042823

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1042823
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Sep 03, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kamal Singh

Respondent

Union of India

Advocate Shri. Vikram Singh, Smt. Shimla Jain

Excerpt

1 rp no.586/2012 03.09.2012 shri b.d'silva, learned sr.counsel with shri v. bhide for the petitioner. shri mohan sausarkar and shri vikram singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. smt. shimla jain, learned counsel for respondent no.2 the petitioner has filed this application seeking review of the order dated 22.06.2012 passed in w.p.no.9811/2011. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner in the petition had prayed for a direction to the respondent no.2, however, during arguments, it was pointed out that the matter is not pending before the respondent no.1, however it appears that on account of a typographical error, the direction has been issued to the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the petitioner's representation, whereas infact direction this court had issued a direction to the respondent no.1 to consider and decide the same. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties. the application filed by the petitioner is allowed. the order dated 22.06.12 passed in w.p.2 no.9811/2011 is modified to the extent that where ever the words “as respondent no.2”. appear in the said order, they shall be read as respondent no.1. the order dated 22.06.2012 passed in w.p no.9811/2011 is modified accordingly. registry is directed to make a note in the margin of the order dated 22.06.2012 passed in w.p no.9811/2011 regarding the aforesaid correction and after necessary correction rescan the order dated 22.06.12. and certified copy of the scanned copy be supplied as and when applied for. c.c.as per rules. ( r.s.jha ) judge gn

Full Judgment

1 RP No.586/2012 03.09.2012 Shri B.D'Silva, learned Sr.Counsel with Shri V.

Bhide for the petitioner.

Shri Mohan Sausarkar and Shri Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

Smt.

Shimla Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.2 The petitioner has filed this application seeking review of the order dated 22.06.2012 passed in W.P.No.9811/2011.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner in the petition had prayed for a direction to the respondent No.2, however, during arguments, it was pointed out that the matter is not pending before the respondent No.1, however it appears that on account of a typographical error, the direction has been issued to the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the petitioner's representation, whereas infact direction this court had issued a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the same.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The application filed by the petitioner is allowed.

The order dated 22.06.12 passed in W.P.2 No.9811/2011 is modified to the extent that where ever the words “as respondent No.2”.

appear in the said order, they shall be read as respondent No.1.

The order dated 22.06.2012 passed in W.P No.9811/2011 is modified accordingly.

Registry is directed to make a note in the margin of the order dated 22.06.2012 passed in W.P No.9811/2011 regarding the aforesaid correction and after necessary correction rescan the order dated 22.06.12.

and certified copy of the scanned copy be supplied as and when applied for.

C.C.as per rules.

( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE gn

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Kamal Singh vs Union of India Same Subject Education