Allowed

Ganpati S/O Pochali Bhoyar v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary and Another

Bombay HC7 Jul 2011WP/1927/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's order refusing to restore an original application. The Court held that the Tribunal acted improperly in denying condonation of delay based on the petitioner's counsel's earlier absence and lack of medical certificate initially. The petitioner was ordered to get the matter restored and heard.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.12.2010 of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was quashed, and Original Application No. 592 of 2008 restored for hearing.

Ganpati S/O Pochali Bhoyar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1927 OF 2011

¶4

(Ganpati Pochali Bhoyar vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.)

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶6

Court's or Judge's orders

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. JULY 07, 2011.

¶8

Heard Shri Sakhare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Joshi, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2.

¶9

We have perused the impugned order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) on 21.12.2010, refusing to restore the matter. MAT has been influenced by the previous absence of the petitioner before it. It appears that on six occasions i.e. on 02.02.2010, 16.02.2010, 22.04.2010, 02.08.2010, 12.08.2010 and 28.09.2010, nobody appeared for the petitioner before the MAT. Thereafter, the application for restoration was moved with a prayer for condonation of delay. The reason given was that on 28.09.2010, the petitioner – employee was not feeling well because of high Blood Pressure and he was taking treatment. The MAT has found that no medical certificate in support thereof was produced.

¶10

Shri Sakhare, learned counsel states that the

¶11

¶12

petitioner was basically depending on his counsel and earlier absence of his counsel could not have been made a ground for refusing restoration. He further states that a medical certificate has been filed now.

¶13

The learned AGP is supporting the order. According to her, there is no jurisdictional error and all relevant facts are looked into.

¶14

It is a settled law that for any error on the part of the advocate, the client cannot be made to suffer. The previous absence of the counsel for the petitioner is not very relevant because it is the reason for absence on the date of dismissal of matter, only is to be looked into.

¶15

We, therefore, find consideration by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal not proper. The said order dated 21.12.2010 is quashed and set aside. The Original Application No. 592 of 2008 on the file of MAT is restored for taking appropriate decision in accordance with law. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

JUDGE

¶17

JUDGE

¶18

*GS.

Ganpati S/O Pochali Bhoyar v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpati S/O Pochali Bhoyar v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary and Another

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

Mrs. Shamsunisha Vs Bank of India, Nagpur and Ors.

Vivek S/O Tulshiram Maske and Anr. Vs University Grants Commission Thr. Its Secty., and 2 Ors.

Pramod S/O Gulab Mhaiskar Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and Ors.

Udaybhan S/O Dhanuji Atram Vs the Honourable Member Industrial Court, Nagpur and 2 Ors.

Ashok S/O Bibhishan Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Ministry of Transport Mantralaya Mumbai

Vilas Namdeorao Wagh... Vs the District and Sessions Judge and 2 Others.