Allowed

Keshavrao Sonbarao Tawde v. Narayanrao Govindrao Tawde and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Apr 2013WP/319/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted relief by quashing an order rejecting a condonation of delay in a misc. application under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. Petitioner allowed to file application on payment of costs to respondents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; misc. application allowed conditionally on deposit of Rs. 5,000 costs to respondents.

Keshavrao Sonbarao Tawde Vs Narayanrao… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 319.2013 WP

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 319 OF 2013

¶4

Keshavrao s/o Sonbaarao Tawde, Age 77 years, Occu. Agri., R/o Village Talni, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded. .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1] Dr. Narayanrao s/o Govindrao Tawde, Age 72 years, Occu. Doctor, R/o Tawde Hospital, Avdhutwadi, Yeotmal, Tq. & Dist. Yeotmal.

¶7

2] Achut s/o Kisanrao Tawde, Age Major, Occu. Labour, (as per judgment) R/o Village Talni, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded.

¶8

3] Raosaheb s/o Himmatrao Tawde, Age Major, Occu. Agri., R/o Village Talni, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded.

¶9

4] Vitthalrao s/o Marotrao Tawde, Age Major, Occu. Agri., R/o Village Talni, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded.

¶10

2 319.2013 WP

¶11

5] Baburao S/o Jalbarao Tawde, Age Major, Occu. Agri., R/o Village Talni, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded. .. Respondents

¶12

Shri V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for petitioner Shri Vivek Dhage, Advocate for respondent Nos 1 & 2 Shri S.R. Chowkidar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 5

¶13

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 1st APRIL, 2013.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶15

. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶16

The application for condonation of delay of 50 days in filing the Misc. Civil Application requiring judicial inquiry before the District Judge under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, is rejected.

¶17

Shri Dhage, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 supports the order and submits that false reason has been given in the application for condonation of delay. The petitioner has relied on the medical certificate stating that from 28/02/2010 to

¶18

3 319.2013 WP

¶19

19/04/2010, the petitioner was bed ridden. In fact, the petitioner appeared in the Court for cross-examination on 29/3/2010 and 09/04/2010. The District Court has properly considered the said aspect. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 further submits that after the present change report four more change reports have been submitted. As such, the litigation in respect of the present change report is merely academic.

¶20

Shri Panpatte, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court has taken a very technical approach. The fact that the petitioner was ill is borne out from the medical certificate. In spite of the petitioner not being fully fit had appeared before the Court for cross examination.

¶21

With the assistance of learned counsel, I have gone through the pleading and the impugned order. When the technical considerations and cause for substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause for substantial justice shall have to be sub served. There is no reason to disbelieve the medical certificate. The petitioner appeared before the Court for crossexamination and that would be showing respect to the orders of the Court that may not be sufficient to infer that the medical

¶22

4 319.2013 WP

¶23

certificate is false.

¶24

As far as the change reports submitted are concerned, the same can be considered by the Court when the proceedings are registered and after hearing all the parties.

¶25

In view of the above, I am inclined to give one more opportunity to the petitioner. However, the petitioner deserves to be mulct with costs.

¶26

In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the Misc. (R.J.E.) Application No. 73/2010 is allowed on condition that petitioner pays cost of Rs. 2500/- (Rs. Two thousand five hundred only) to each of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. total Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) within a period of three weeks from today. If the costs is deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated period, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are entitled to withdraw the same.

¶27

. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶28

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶29

SDM*/April-14

Keshavrao Sonbarao Tawde v. Narayanrao Govindrao Tawde and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshavrao Sonbarao Tawde v. Narayanrao Govindrao Tawde and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balasaheb Jagannath Adhav Vs Shobha Balasaheb Adhav

Barku Devrao Kachare Vs Chandrabhaga Vishnu Kachare and Ors.

Latif Nandkumar Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhagwat Sarangdhar Sadaphal Vs Anusayabai Tatyaba Palande and Ors.

Amarsing Digambar Jadhav Vs Manoj @ Manojkumar Shamsundar Jadhav and Ors.

Sarita Dhanraj Gavhale and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.