Allowed

Upendra Gunwantrao Muley v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Mar 2011WP/1020/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A three-writ petition challenging an order dated 12.1.2011 passed by an earlier officer. The Court held the order invalid due to timing discrepancies and quashed it, directing the present incumbent to hear the matters.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12.1.2011 quashed and set aside; all writ petitions allowed; parties directed to appear before respondent no.2 on 29.3.2011; rule made absolute; no costs.

Upendra Gunwantrao Muley Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1) WP 1020.2011+2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1020 OF 2011

¶4

Upendra Gunwantrao Muley PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 1100 OF 2011

¶9

Mrs. Pratibha Pradip Ghanekar PETITIONER

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

TheState of Maharasthra and ors. RESPONDENTS

¶12

AND

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO. 1184 OF 2011

¶14

Mrs. Pratibha Pradip Ghanekar PETITIONER

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

TheState of Maharasthra and ors. RESPONDENTS

¶17

.....

¶18

Mr. R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioner in all
Petitions.

¶19

Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State in all
Petitions.

¶20

Mr. A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.5 in Writ
Petition no. 1020 of 2011.

¶21

Mr. G.D. Kale, Advocate for respondent no.5 in Writ
Petition no. 1100 of 2011.

¶22

Mr. N.R. Solunke, Advocate for respondent no.4 in Writ
Petition no. 1184 of 2011.

¶23

.....

¶24

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
 DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2011

¶25

ORAL ORDER:-

¶26

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶27

(2) WP 1020.2011+2

¶28

Heard Advocate Shri Nagargoje for the petitioners,
Shri Deshpande for respondent no.5, Shri Tambe
learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and

¶29

Advocate N.R. Solunke for respondent no.4.

¶30

2.After hearing respective counsel, it is
clear that the arguments were heard by the Officer
(respondent no.2) and thereafter he was transferred
on 20.1.2011. The next incumbent on that post had
not heard the argument and hence on 29.1.2011, he
forwarded the matter to earlier incumbent. Earlier
incumbent then passed the impugned order dated

¶31

12.1.2011.

¶32

3.Shri Nagargoje has contended that when

¶33

records are forwarded to earlier incumbent on
29.1.2011, the earlier incumbent could not have

¶34

passed orders on 12.1.2011. The learned A.G.P. has
filed reply affidavit on behalf of respondent no.2.
Shri Deshpande has filed affidavit on behalf of
respondent no.5 in Writ Petition no. 1020 of 2011 and

¶35

Shri G.D. Kale has filed affidavit for respondent
no.5 in Writ Petition no. 1100 of 2011. Those

¶36

affidavits are taken on record.

¶37

(3) WP 1020.2011+2

¶38

4.In view of the document on record dated
29.1.2011 addressed to the earlier incumbent (Shri
D.B. Mukne), presently Regional Joint Director
(Sugar) (Aurangabad), it is clear that the orders
have been passed by earlier incumbent after 29.1.2011
and in order to show that same were passed before
handing over charge, the date 12.1.2011 has been
placed on it.

¶39

5.In view of this clear position emerging on
record, it is not necessary for this Court to go into
more details at this stage as there are no other
allegations of personal nature against the present
incumbent or the earlier incumbent and the Officers
are not joined by name as parties, it is also not
necessary for this Court to record any finding about
absence of any malafides on their part. The mistake
appear to be bonafide or inadvertent. It is also
substantiated by act of said Officer in issuing
corrigendum and in correcting the date from 12.1.2011
to 29.1.2011.

¶40

(4) WP 1020.2011+2

¶41

6.In these circumstances, impugned order dated
12.1.2011 passed by respondent no.2 are quashed and
set aside. All Writ Petitions are allowed. Present
incumbent has to hear the petitioners and pass
appropriate orders. Alteration of dates by the
earlier incumbent will not render his orders legal
and valid. The parties are accordingly directed to
appear before respondent no.2 on 29.3.2011 and to
abide by his further directions in the matter. Rule
made absolute accordingly. No costs.

¶42

 [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.]

¶43

arp

Upendra Gunwantrao Muley v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Gunwantrao Muley v. the State of Mah 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

Santosh Laxman Pawar Vs Shri Wadji Vidya Shikshan Prasarakl Mandal Hargadwadi Dist Beed through Secretary and Ors.

Limbaji Gema Jadhav Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Piraji Deoba Jadhav Th Gpa Piraji Nagorao Gaikwad Vs Rohit Sangamnath Mandharne and Anr.

Jijabai Nana Pagore Vs Rajendrakumar Madanlal Kala and Ors.

Gangamai Industries and Constructions Limited through Vice President Ambadas Laxman More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dwarkadas Ramchandra Mandhane Vs Ramlal Mansingh Gawli (Choudhary), Thr. L.Rs. Ajudyabai Ramlal Gawli and Ors.