Quashed

Urwarit Maharashtra Vaidhanik Vikas Mandal and Anr. v. Gram Panchayat and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jun 2011CAW/1615/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Division Bench quashed an interim order that virtually granted final relief at an interlocutory stage without hearing the applicants. The court remanded the matter to the respondents to reconsider the disbursement of funds for village development works after providing a hearing to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 5.1.2010 and order dated 3.8.2009 are quashed. Matter remanded to respondents to reconsider disbursement after hearing petitioner.

Urwarit Maharashtra Vaidhanik Vikas Mandal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

caw-1615-10

LRS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1615 OF 2010 WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.8792 OF 2009

¶7

Urwarit Maharashtra Vaidhanik Vikas Mandal and Anr.

¶8

.. .. Petitioners.

¶9

Versus

¶10

Gram Panchayat and others .. .. Respondents.

¶11

Mr Shriniranjan A.Mogre i/by Shri S.M.Gorwadkar, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶12

Mr S.K.Shinde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in writ petition and Applicants in C.A.

¶13

Mrs M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State.

¶14

Mr. Abhijeet Desai i/by Shri N.P. Deshpande for Respondent No.3.

¶15

CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND A. R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶16

DATED : JUNE 22nd, 2011.

caw-1615-10

LRS.

P.C. :

Heard the learned counsel for the applicants (original respondent Nos. 4 and 5) and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (original petitioner).

¶22

The Civil Application is moved by the applicants for setting aside / vacating the interim relief granted by this Court vide order dated 5.1.2010.

¶23

The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the writ petition is directed against the order passed by respondent No.5 dated 3.8.2009 whereby recommendations made by respondent No.4 dated 21.7.2009 to release the amount of Rs.7,78,000/- for development work in respect of village Aalegaon as well as amount of Rs. 8,17,000/- at village Arangaon came to be cancelled. It is submitted that this Court vide interim order dated 5.1.2010 virtually granted the final relief to the petitioner-Gram Panchayat. The learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the last portion of the interim order which reads thus:-

¶24

“No reason is given for withdrawing the recommendation. In our opinion, considering the work sanctioned, there appears no justification for not permitting that work to be carried out. Hence Rule. Interim order in terms

caw-1615-10

LRS.

of prayer clause (b)”.

¶29

4. Prayer clause (b) of the petition reads, thus :-

¶30

“That the order passed by respondent No.5 purportedly dated 3.8.2009 thereby cancelling the recommendation of respondent No.4 dated 21.7.2009 to effect development work worth Rs.7,78,000/- at village Aalegaon, and worth Rs. 8,17,000/- at village Arangaon, Tal. Shirur, District Pune be quashed and set aside”.

¶31

The counsel for the applicants has submitted that at the time of

¶32

passing of the interim order, respondent No. 5 was not heard and, therefore, the following facts could not be placed before the Court, which are :-

¶33

(i) After issuing recommendations letter, it was

¶34

noticed by the Board that in the preceding year 2008-09 development work of renovation of Cemetery for village Arangaon was recommended and the amount sanctioned was of Rs.7,59,000/-.

¶35

(ii) Recommendations were also made for

caw-1615-10

LRS.

construction of two community halls at village Arangaon; and sanction was also accorded.

¶40

(iii) The nature of work recommended and executed at village Arangaon for renovation of Cemetery during the preceding year 2008-09 was almost similar to the recommendation made during the year 2009-10 vide letter dated 21.7.2009.

¶41

It is submitted that since present applicant (original respondent no. 5) was not heard at the time of passing of the interim order, these facts could not be placed before the Court. It is also contended that the interim relief is in the form of final relief and, therefore, on this count also it cannot be sustained in law. The learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that respondent nos. 4 and 5 are ready and willing to reconsider the issue afresh by giving opportunity of hearing

¶42

to the petitioner- Gram Panchayat and shall take a fresh decision in this regard based on the recommendations and other attending circumstances within a period of four weeks from today.

¶43

The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 (original petitioner), on the other hand, has submitted that the order dated 3.8.2009 passed by respondent No.5 being without reasons the

caw-1615-10

LRS.

Division Bench of this Court by interim order set aside the impugned order, and therefore, the impugned order dated 5.1.2010 is just, proper and is sustainable in law.

¶48

Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the prayer clause (b) of the petition as well as the impugned order dated 5.1.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

¶49

At the out set, we would like to express that granting final relief at the interlocutory stage when the petition is pending for decision on merits is not proper. In the instant case, in prayer clause (b) the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 3.8.2009 whereby the recommendations made by respondent No.4 vide communication dated 21.7.2009 came to be cancelled. The interim order virtually allows the petitioner at interlocutory stage which is impermissible in law.

¶50

Apart from this aspect, it is brought to our notice that at the time of passing interim order the applicants (original respondent Nos. 4 and 5) were not heard and therefore certain relevant facts, referred to herein above could not be placed before the Division Bench by the present applicants.

caw-1615-10

LRS.

The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that they are ready and willing to reconsider the issue afresh by giving opportunity of hearing to respondent No.1 (original petitioner) and will take decision according to law.

¶55

Taking into consideration the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel as well as over all view of the matter ends of justice will be met, if we pass the following order:-

¶56

(a) Civil Application is allowed. The interim order

¶57

dated 5.1.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. Similarly, order dated 3.8.2009 passed by Respondent No. 5 cancelling the recommendations made by respondent No.4 dated 21.7.2009 is also hereby quashed and set aside.

¶58

(b) Matter is remanded back to Respondent Nos. 4

¶59

and 5 in Writ Petition No. 8792 of 2009 to reconsider the issue of disbursement of payment of Rs.7,78,000/- for the purpose of development work

¶60

of village Aalegaon and Rs.8,17,600/- for the development work of Arangaon, after giving

caw-1615-10

LRS.

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and should take a decision in accordance with law and procedure

¶65

as well as as per the provisions of the relevant Scheme, on its own merit within a period of four weeks from today.

¶66

¶67

(D. D. SINHA, J.)

¶68

(A. R. JOSHI, J.)

Urwarit Maharashtra Vaidhanik Vikas Mandal and Anr. v. Gram Panchayat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urwarit Maharashtra Vaidhanik Vikas Mandal and Anr. v. Gram Panchayat and 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

Shakti Commercial Premises Co. Operative Society Ltd., Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vasubhai Patel Vs the Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Anil Kisan Bondre and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ekta Chsl (Proposed) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

New Ekta Chsl (Proposed) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Paresh Prabhakar Chewale Vs the Territory Manager (Lpg), and Ors.