Partly allowed

Padnalay Construction, Jalgaon Thr Proprietor v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Dec 2013WP/3938/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik, in a review proceeding. The High Court, finding that the petitioner was denied an opportunity of hearing despite attending the session, quashed the order. The proceedings were remanded to the authority to decide after a proper hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned review order dated 30/03/2012 is quashed. Proceedings remanded to the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, to be decided after hearing the petitioner.

Padnalay Construction, Jalgaon Thr Proprietor… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

Writ Petition No.3938 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3938 OF 2012

¶5

Padmalya Construction, Jalgaon PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr.P.P.Chavan, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondent State.

¶9

(CORAM : RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J.)

¶10

DATE : 16/12/2013

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

¶13

Contention of the petitioner is that in the proceedings before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik in R.T.S. Revision No.

¶14

05/2012, the matter was adjourned on 14/03/2012 and the judgment was delivered on 15/03/2012. Copy of the said order is at page No.58 of the petition paper book.

¶15

( 2 ) Writ Petition No.3938 of 2012

¶16

It is contended that a notice of hearing was issued on

¶17

21/03/2012 suo-motu with an intention of causing hearing on review of the order dated 15/03/2012. The petitioner attended the hearing on 22/03/2012 as per the notice and the matter was adjourned to 30/03/2002. It is further stated that despite remaining present on 30/03/2012, appearance and presence of the petitioner is not recorded in the roznama, he is not heard and yet review is caused. The copy of the order in review dated 30/03/2012 is at page No. 78 of the petition paper book.

¶18

Learned A.G.P. submits that the petitioner was absent on 30/03/2012 and therefore the learned Authority decided to proceed with the matter and has passed the impugned order.

¶19

I have gone through the R & P's pertaining to R.T.S. Revision No.05/2012 and Review No.06/2012. Without getting into the controversy, ends of justice would be met if an opportunity of hearing, as requested by the petitioner, is granted. It is an admitted position that the notice of hearing of review was issued on

¶20

21/03/2012 and the review was sought to be heard on 22/03/2012.

¶21

( 3 ) Writ Petition No.3938 of 2012

¶22

It came to be adjourned to 30/03/2012 and the controversy is about

¶23

an opportunity of hearing on that date.

¶24

If at all the petitioner was not present on 30/03/2012, the

¶25

concerned authority could have adjourned the matter in order to ensure that a proper hearing would have taken place. There can not be any justification for hastening with the matter.

¶26

In the light of the above, the impugned order dated 30/03/2012 is quashed and set aside. The proceeding in R.T.S. Review No.06/2012 is relegated back to the Additional Commissioner,

¶27

Nashik Division Nashik, with a direction that the same shall be

¶28

decided after hearing the petitioner and in accordance with Law.

¶29

The petitioner shall appear before the Additional

¶30

Commissioner, Nashik Division Nashik on 02/01/2014 at 11.00 a.m. and shall abide by further instructions in the said matter. The petitioner shall co-operate and avoid un-necessary adjournments so as to enable the concerned Authority to decide the review petition as

¶31

expeditiously as possible and preferably before 28/02/2014. Record

¶32

( 4 ) Writ Petition No.3938 of 2012

¶33

and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Authority forthwith.

¶34

The amount of Rs.10,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner in this Court by order dated 02/05/2012 be transmitted to the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division Nashik and will be held as an additional deposit made by the petitioner to the already existing deposit with the said Authority. Any decision on the said deposit, inclusive of this amount of Rs.10,00,000/- may be taken in accordance with the due procedure laid down by Law.

¶35

With these directions, writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of. All contentions of the parties are kept open. No order as to costs.

¶36

khs/Dec.2013/wp3938-12

Padnalay Construction, Jalgaon Thr Proprietor v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padnalay Construction, Jalgaon Thr Proprietor v. the State of Mah and Anr.

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

Kashinath Parvati Labade Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Anr.

Namdeo Daulatrao Chavan Vs the Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another

Santosh Vasant Pakale and Anr. Vs Rangnath Nivrutti Dhavalshank and Ors.

Bhairavnath Tulshiram Zanje Vs Maharashtra State Sports and Youth Services and Ors.

Sandip Pandurang Nannaware Vs Shrigonda Krishi Utpana Bazar Samiti and Anr.

Municipal Council, Sillod Vs Bhanudas Jayawanta Sonawane