Hyderali Vs. the Superintending Engineer

constitution of india - article 226--writ--maintainability of--review petition pending before superintending engineer--held, high court not be interfere during pendency of petition. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....passed by him as the same was passed without notice to them, he also pointed out that the petitioner does not know under what circumstances the application dated 9-11-1976 was filed, but if the petitioner's predecessor had submitted such an application there would have been no occasion to submit objections on 19-4-78 & the matter would have been disposed of with consent in the year 1976. i need not go into all these questions. the petitioner may raise these matters before the superintending engineer, before whom an application in the nature of review is already pending. the petitioner should first pursue the application submitted by him before the superintending engineer. he may also bring the technical aspect of the matter to the notice of the superintending engineer. it would not be proper for this court at this stage to interfere in the impugned order in view of the pendency of the petitioner's application before the superintending engineer.4. the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily. however it is observed that in case the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order, which may be passed on his application for review, he may seek such remedy which may be available to him in law.