Quashed

Rajendra Devidas Kate v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Jan 2013WP/454/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Privileged W.P. challenged an order where parties were erroneously identified. The single judge held the order violated natural justice due to lack of hearing of the petitioner. The judge quashed the order and directed reconsideration after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside; authority directed to decide revision after hearing petitioner and respondent No. 6.

Rajendra Devidas Kate Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

W.P. 454.2013- (J)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 454 OF 2013

¶5

Rajendra S/o Devidas Kate Age : 41 Yrs., Occ. : Agril., R/o : Sant Namdeo Nagar, Dhanora Road, Beed,

¶6

Tq. and Dist. Beed. .... PETITIONER

¶7

V E R S U S

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

Through its Principal Secretary Food, Civil Supply & Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶10

The Hon'ble Minister Food, Civil Supply & Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶11

The Deputy Commissioner (Supply) Aurangabad.

¶12

The District Supply Officer Beed, Dist. : Beed.

¶13

The Tahsildar Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶14

Rekha W/o Suresh Dhavale Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. : Business, R/o : Sant Namdeo Nagar,

¶15

W.P. 454.2013- (J)

¶16

¶17

Wasanwadi, Tq. and Dist. Beed. .... RESPONDENTS

¶18

Mr. P.S. Dighe, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶19

Mr. S.K.Kadam, A.G.P. for the State.

¶20

Mr. C.V. Thombre, Advocate for Resp. No. 6.

¶21

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

¶22

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/01/2013

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶24

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

¶25

learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶26

The Revision filed by the present Respondent No. 6 is allowed by the Hon'ble Minister. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶27

Mr. Dighe, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court had set aside the earlier order passed by the respondent No. 2 and directed the respondent No. 3 to grant opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner and thereafter decide the Revision. The respondent No. 2 did not hear the present petitioner and in mechanical manner passed impugned order. The respondent No. 2 has shown the petitioner as the

¶28

W.P. 454.2013- (J)

¶29

¶30

revision petitioner and the present respondent No. 6 as respondent No. 3, whereas in fact it is the respondent No. 6 who has filed Revision before the respondent No. 2. The order is bad in law on account of non observance of principles of natural justice.

¶31

Mr. Thombre, the learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits

¶32

that it was typographical error in showing the name of the present petitioner as Revision Petitioner and the present respondent No. 6 as respondent No. 3. That would not affect the merits of the order. According to the learned counsel, even the Say and the documents filed by the petitioner were considered. No interference is required to be made in the said order.

¶33

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through

¶34

the order.

¶35

The Revision was filed by the present respondent No. 6 before

¶36

the respondent No. 2. However, in the impugned order, the present petitioner is shown as Revision Petitioner before the respondent No. 2 and the present respondent No. 6 as respondent No. 3. It appears that the petitioner was not heard after he had filed Say on 08/10/2012.

¶37

4 W.P. 454.2013- (J)

¶38

The opportunity of hearing is one of the important ingredients of the principles of natural justice. In absence of the same, the order can not be sustained.

¶39

In light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 2 shall decide the Revision after hearing the present petitioner and the Respondent No. 6. The parties shall appear before the Respondent No. 2 on 18/02/2013. The respondent No. 2 shall, after hearing all the parties, decide the Revision afresh expeditiously.

¶40

The amount deposited by the present respondent No. 6 with the District Supply Officer shall be retained by the District Supply Officer and shall be subject to the decision in the Revision.

¶41

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

¶42

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶43

KNP/W.P. 454.2013- (J)

Rajendra Devidas Kate v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Devidas Kate 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

The State of Mah and Anr. Vs M/S New Maharashtra Sand Suppliers

Manohar S/Osridhar Bhat Died through Lrs Kamalkar Vs Chandrabai S/O Shamlal Agrawal

Akbarshah Hussenshah and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Digambar Ramkrushna Patil Vs Shrawan Ramchandra Mahajan and Ors.

Dattatrya Eakanath Shinde, Died Thr. L.Rs. Babasaibh and Ors. Vs Rajaram Bhagwat Raut and Ors.

Abhiman@Abhimanyu Krishna Pawar Vs Manik Sahebrao Lamkane