Quashed

Sunil Harishchandra Shetye Proprietor of M/S. Siraj Developers v. State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Mar 2010WP/234/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an appeal decision by the High Power Committee made in the absence of his counsel. The bench held the Committee violated natural justice and quashed the order, directing a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; appeal restored before the High Power Committee with direction to hear it afresh.

Sunil Harishchandra Shetye Proprietor… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORIGINAL SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.234 OF 2010

¶3

Sunil Harishchandra Shetty.... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors..... Respondents

¶4

S/Shri P. Kawali i/b S.K. Pathare for
the Petitioner.
Ms I.M. Calcuttawala, AGP, for Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.

¶5

Shri G.D. Utangale i/b Utangale & Co.
for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶6

CORAM: J.N. PATEL AND
 A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.
DATED: MARCH 22, 2010

¶7

P.C:

¶8

1.Heard the learned counsel for the

¶9

parties. This petition can be disposed of at
the admission stage itself.

¶10

2.It is the case of the petitioner that
the matter was placed before the High Power
Committee (hereinafter called as �the
Committee�) but as his counsel could not appear
before the Committee on 24-9-2009 in time as he

¶11

¶12

was busy in this Court and though a request was
made to the Committee by the petitioner to keep
back the matter to enable his Advocate to
appear before it, the Committee did not accede
to the request and proceeded to decide the
appeal.

¶13

3.The learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that if this Court directs
the Committee, the Committee will hear the
petitioner afresh in the matter.

¶14

4.Without going into the merits of the
matter, we are of the view that the Committee
ought to have given a fair opportunity to the
petitioner while disposing of his appeal. It
is expected of the Committee to follow the
rules of natural justice while considering
matters pending before it, particularly when
the Committee is constituted by the State
Government in order to deal with matters
relating to slum re-development schemes and as
it exercises quasi judicial powers in
determining the issues between the parties,
therefore, it has to be fair while dealing with
the parties, and particularly accommodate
Advocates. It was not proper for the Committee
to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner in

¶15

¶16

the absence of his Advocate, particularly when
there is nothing on the record to show that the
petitioner or his Advocate were not diligent in
conducting the matter before it. Therefore, we
quash and set aside the impugned order and
restore the appeal before the Committee with
the direction that the Committee will proceed
to hear the appeal afresh. The petition
accordingly stands disposed of.

¶17

5.The petitioner to move the Committee
along with a copy of this order.

Sunil Harishchandra Shetye Proprietor of M/S. Siraj Developers v. State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Harishchandra Shetye Proprietor of M/S. Siraj Developers v. State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjana Kshetry and 2 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Govind a. Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Tulsi Karsan Padiyar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gopal S Shivgand and 3 Ors. Vs Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Patpedi Ltd. and 10 Ors.

Kishore Mohanlal Dingra Vs M/S. S,K. Fulms Enterprises

D.D. Builders and Developers Vs the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 3 Ors.