Bombay High Court
EDWARD SWALIN DCUNHAversusSHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is disposed of without further order as the petitioner’s grievances have been substantially addressed, though all contentions remain open.
Summary
The petitioner, Edward Swalin D’cunha, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking compliance by the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) with a 2010 judgment (Writ Petition No.716 of 2008) and with his representation dated 11 September 2023. Earlier orders directed SCI to reinstate the petitioner, pay all dues, and provide a suitable on‑shore post within six weeks. Although SCI later filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner had been reinstated and dues paid, the court required further documentation and a responsible officer to appear. Subsequent orders gave SCI a final opportunity to file an affidavit and allowed the petitioner to file a rejoinder, but the petitioner’s health caused a adjournment. After hearing counsel, the court observed that the petitioner’s grievances were substantially addressed and therefore declined to proceed further, disposing of the petition while leaving all contentions open and awarding no costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the Shipping Corporation of India has complied with the directions of the 2010 judgment in Writ Petition No.716 of 2008.
- Whether the petitioner’s representation dated 11 September 2023 requires further adjudication.
- Whether the petition should be dismissed or continued in view of the alleged compliance and pending documentation.
Subjects
- Article 226
- writ of mandamus
- reinstatement
- service law
- compliance with judgment
- Shipping Corporation of India
- civil procedure
Judgment
9WP4135-2024.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4135 OF 2024
Edward Swalin D’cunha. ...Petitioner
Versus
Shippiing Corporation of India ...Respondent
_______
Mr. Pradeep Havnur i/b. Swetapadmasini Dasle, Khusbu Bani, for Petitioner.
Ms. Nikita Bordepatil, with Ms. Tithi Raut i/b. FF & Associates, for Respondent.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, DGM Shore Personnel P&A Dept, Officer for SCI
present.
_______
Digitally
signed by
PRASHANT
VILAS
PRASHANT
VILAS RANE
Date:
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
RANE 2026.06.23
13:30:39
+0530
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 22 JUNE 2026
P.C.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed praying for the
following substantive reliefs:-
(a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue
a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or
writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order
directing the Respondents to place before this Hon’ble
Court all relevant papers and documents with respect to
the service of the Petitioner and upon perusal of the same,
be pleased to direct the Respondents to comply with the
Judgment dated 18.03.2010 passed in Writ Petition
No.716 of 2008 and direct Respondents to adhere to
Petitioner’s representation dated 11.09.2023 in its true
letter and spirit.
(b) That the Respondents be ordered and directed to
adhere to Petitioner’s representation dated 11.09.2023 by
Page 1 of 3
P. V. Rane
9WP4135-2024.DOC
giving personal hearing, in time bound manner in the
interest of justice;”
2. The only prayer in the petition is that the representation of the petitioner
dated 11 September 2023 be decided. Considering the prayer, a co-ordinate Bench
of this Court on 7 December 2023 had passed the following order:
“1. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 25 th January 2024. Learned
counsel waives notice for the respondent.
2. In the meanwhile, the respondent shall consider the petitioner’s
representation dated 11th September 2023 (page 55 of the Petition) and file an
affidavit in that regard.”
3. We find from the record that thereafter on 25 July 2025 the First Bench of
this Court passed the following order recording that the petitioner has been
reinstated in service and all legally payable dues to him have been paid.
In the judgment rendered in the case of the petitioner vide Writ Petition No.
716 of 2008, the following directions were passed by this Court while interfering
with the order dated 30th December 2006.
"46. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the impugned order
dated 30th December, 2006 passed by respondent No. 1-Commissioner
and direct respondent No. 2-SCI to continue the petitioner in their service
with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, annual
increments and promotions, etc. Respondent No. 2-SCI is directed to
provide to the petitioner an appropriate light and suitable onshore post. In
the event, the SCI is unable to provide such onshore post to the petitioner,
the petitioner shall be kept on supernumerary post until a suitable post is
made available to him or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is
earlier. The above exercise shall be carried out by SCI within a period of six
weeks from today."
2. This is not in dispute that the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.716 of
2008 attained finality when the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent-
State was dismissed on 22nd October 2013.
3. Notwithstanding that, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court
by filing Writ Petition No.4135 of 2024.
4. The filing of a fresh writ petition by the petitioner itself is an indication that
the order passed by this Court in the previous proceedings has not yet been
Page 2 of 3
P. V. Rane
9WP4135-2024.DOC
complied with by the respondents, as directed by this Court in paragraph no.46
as aforementioned.
5. However, the respondents have filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner has
been reinstated in service and all legally payable dues to him have been paid.
6. Let the details of payments made to the petitioner be given in affidavit before
this Court on the next date of hearing. On that day, a responsible Officer of the
Shipping Corporation of India shall remain present in Court with all relevant
documents.
7. Post this matter on 21st August 2025.”
4. Further clarificatory order came to be passed by the co-ordinate Bench of
this Court on 6 February 2026 which is required to be noted which reads thus:
“1. The matter mentioned. Not on board. Taken on board.
2. By a praecipe bearing today’s date, the learned counsel appearing for
the Respondent has sought extension of time to file affidavit as had been
directed by order dated 28 January 2026 passed in furtherance of the First
Court’s Order dated 25 July 2025.
3. By way of last chance, the Respondent shall file their affidavit as
directed within a period of two weeks from today.
4. The Petitioner is at liberty to file an affidavit in rejoinder on or before
20 March 2026.
5. Writ Petition had been earlier placed for consideration on 9 February
2026 vide order dated 28 January 2026. However,as per the request of the
learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is unwell, the
Writ Petition is stood over to 30 March 2026.”
5. On such backdrop, we have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We find
from the orders that the petitioners grievances have been substantially addressed.
We are, therefore, not inclined to take the petition any further. We dispose of the
petition keeping open all contentions of the parties. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 3 of 3
P. V. Rane
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.