Remanded

Nagraj Pukhrajji Sheth and Ors. v. Ashokrao Chavan and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Nov 2011LPA/268/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Letters Patent Appeal, the two-judge bench set aside the learned Single Judge's order denying relief to the appellants. The court remitted the writ petition for de novo consideration with specific instructions regarding the alleged hearing and evidence before the State Government.

What did the court decide?

Order of learned Single Judge set aside. Writ Petition No.2501 of 2010 remitted to learned Single Judge for de novo consideration.

Nagraj Pukhrajji Sheth and Ors. Vs Ashokrao… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

Kambli

¶2

1 LPA 268.11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.268 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2501 OF 2010

¶6

Shri Nagraj Pukhrajji Sheth and another ...Appellants v/s. Shri Ashokrao Chavan and others ...Respondents

¶7

Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.M.Sabrad for the Appellants.

¶8

Mr.K.S.Bapat for Respondent No.3. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for State. Mr.S.B.Shetye for Respondents No.5,6 & 7.

¶9

CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & Anoop V. Mohta, JJ DATED: 14^th November, 2011

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

Admit. Heard finally by consent of parties.

¶12

This Appeal is directed against the order passed

¶13

by the learned single Judge of this Court dated 4^th August, 2011 in Writ Petition No.2501 of 2010. That petition was filed

¶14

by the present Appellants challenging the order passed by the

¶15

2 LPA 268.11

¶16

State Government dated 23-2-2010. By that order the State Government rejected the application made by the Appellants contending that the Respondents Nos. 5, 6 & 7 who are Councilors of Respondent No.3- Municipal Council should be disqualified to be Councilor of that Municipal Council. As observed by the learned single Judge in paragraph 2 of his order, the principal ground of challenge was that the State Government made the order without granting the Appellants, who were the complainants before the State Government an opportunity of being heard.

¶17

The learned single Judge has rejected the petition. The learned single Judge has held that the order of the State Government cannot be set aside on the ground that before making that order an opportunity of being heard was not granted to the Appellants who were complainants before the State Government. The learned single Judge, thus, proceeded on the basis of the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government that before making the order the State Government did not hear the Appellants, because according

¶18

3 LPA 268.11

¶19

to the State Government in view of the statutory provisions it

¶20

was not necessary for the State Government to hear them.

¶21

The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that the State Government has held that Video Recording of the proceedings of the particular meeting of the Municipal Council shows that the concerned Councilors had used unparliamentary language in their speeches in the meeting. However, the State Government has rejected the demand for their disqualification on the ground that they are guilty of disgraceful conduct, because, according to the State Government, the person by name Mr.Ghanshyam D. Kadu, who had done the Video Recording of the meeting had no permission to do the Video Recording. The learned Counsel submits that thus it appears that the State Government not only heard the concerned Councilors behind the back of the Appellants, but also admitted evidence which weighed with the State Government in rejecting the complaint made by the Appellants behind the back of the Appellants. According to the learned Counsel, therefore, it was necessary for the State

¶22

4 LPA 268.11

¶23

Government to grant an opportunity of being heard to the Appellants, but also to lead evidence before the State Government.

¶24

The learned Counsel appearing for the

¶25

Councilors, whose disqualification was sought, on the contrary, submitted before us that the State Government had in fact heard the Appellants before making the order which was impugned in the Writ Petition before the learned single Judge. The learned Counsel appearing for the Councilors submitted that they had specifically submitted in their affidavit that the State Government had heard the Appellants before the order was made. He submitted that the learned single Judge, however, has not considered this stand taken by the Respondents. He, therefore, submitted that the matter should be remanded back to the learned single Judge for consideration of this aspect of the matter. Because, according to him even assuming that grant of hearing by the State Government is necessary to the Appellants, as they were in fact heard by the State Government before making

¶26

5 LPA 268.11

¶27

the order, the order of the State Government cannot be disturbed.

¶28

It is obvious from the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Councilors as also from the affidavit filed by them before the learned single Judge that it was their case before the learned single Judge that the State Government had in fact heard the Appellants before the order which was impugned in the Writ Petition was made. However, the order of the learned single Judge shows that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned single Judge and the learned single Judge proceeded on the footing that the State Government did not hear the Appellants before the order was made.

¶29

We also find some substance in the submission made on behalf of the Appellants that the Appellants as complainants were entitled to an opportunity of being heard before the order was made by the State Government on their complaint. However, in view of the order that we propose to

¶30

6 LPA 268.11

¶31

make we do not want to explain any final opinion on this aspect of the matter. In our opinion, in view of the aforesaid following order would meet the ends of justice.

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

(i) The order of the learned single Judge impugned in the Appeal is set aside. Writ Petition No.2501 of 2010 is remitted back to the learned single Judge for denovo consideration and decision in accordance with law.

¶34

(ii) Appeal disposed of.

¶35

(ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)

Nagraj Pukhrajji Sheth and Ors. v. Ashokrao Chavan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagraj Pukhrajji Sheth and Ors. v. Ashokrao Chavan 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

Sanjay Kumar Rameshwarprasad Sharma Vs Union of India and Anr.

Ratnagiri Zilla Sahakari Krishi Gramin Bahuuddeshiya Vikas Bank Karmachari Sanghatana, Ratnagiri Vs Sahakari Krishi Gramin Bahuuddehsiya Vikas Bank Karmachari Sanghatana,Ratnagiri

B.N. Gangurde (Shri B.L. Gangurde) Vs Smt. Urmila Mahendra Shah and Other

Rammurthy Ramkhelawan Pal Vs Nirmala Rammurti Pal and Ors.

Divisional Railway Manager Vs Mrs. Prabhavati Ramgarib B.

Tukaram Kana Joshi and Ors. Vs Midc and Ors.