Remanded

Natwarsinh Keshavbhai Solanki v. Shri. Sevantilal Mangilal Shah and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Aug 2013WP/9917/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an order by the Administrator of Dadra and Nagar Haveli remanding a matter without stating reasons. The High Court held that lack of reasons justified the quashing of the impugned order and remanded it back to the Administrator to decide the appeal expeditiously with reasons.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order of remand; remanded matter to Administrator to decide appeal with reasons within four weeks.

Natwarsinh Keshavbhai Solanki Vs Shri. Sevantilal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

29.wp.9917.12.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 9917 OF 2012

¶5

Natwarsinh Keshavbhai Solanki ... Petitioner Vs. Shri Sevantilal Mangilal Shah & Ors. ... Respondents

¶6

¶7

Mr. Girish R. Agarwal, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶8

Mr.M.M.Vashi i/b M/s. M.P.Vashi & Associates for Respondent No.1.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & K. R. SHRIRAM, JJ.

¶11

DATE : AUGUST 19, 2013.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

1 The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Appeal filed by Respondent No.1 before the Administrator of Dadra and Nagar Haveli has been disposed of by remanding the matter back to the Resident Deputy Collector for hearing the matter afresh.

¶14

2 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that that no reasons have been assigned by the Administrator for remanding the matter back to the Resident Deputy

¶15

1 / 3

¶16

Shraddha Talekar P.A.

¶17

29.wp.9917.12.doc

¶18

Collector. He has invited our attention to the impugned order and more particularly to the paragraph in which the Administrator has remanded the matter back. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 has submitted that instead of remanding the matter back to the Resident Deputy Collector, a direction may be given to the Administrator to decide the Appeal filed by Respondent No.1.

¶19

3 We have perused the impugned order. The Administrator obviously has not assigned any reasons as to why the case was remanded back to the Resident Deputy Collector. The Administrator has observed in the impugned order as under :

¶20

“After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments put forth by both the parties and the Government Counsel, I am of the view that the case needs to be remanded back to the Resident Dy. Collector for hearing the case afresh. In view of the above the case is remanded to the Resident Dy. Collector for deciding the case as per rules within a period of two months.”

¶21

4 In our view, absolutely no reasons have been assigned by the Administrator for remanding the matter back and disposing the said Appeal. On this ground alone, the order of remand needs to be

¶22

2 / 3

¶23

Shraddha Talekar P.A.

¶24

29.wp.9917.12.doc

¶25

quashed and set aside. We are, therefore, remanding the matter back to the Administrator with a direction to decide the Appeal and dispose it of by giving the reasons. All contentions of the parties are kept open. The Administrator may decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶26

[K. R. SHRIRAM, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶27

3 / 3

¶28

Shraddha Talekar P.A.

Natwarsinh Keshavbhai Solanki v. Shri. Sevantilal Mangilal Shah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natwarsinh Keshavbhai Solanki v. Shri. Sevantilal Mangilal Shah 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

M/S. Cosmos Realtors, through Suraj Parmar Vs the Municipal Corporation for the City of Thane, through Commissioner and Anr.

Shri. Damu Ladu Khade (Since Decd) through Lrs, Shri. Anil Damu Khade Vs the Collector, Pune and Ors.

Shri. Mukund Nana Gawari Vs the Collector, Pune and Ors.

Orchid Hotels (Pune) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Tanisha Medical and General Stores, through Prop. Mr. Shankarlal Gulabji Bhati Vs the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Padmakar Dnyanoba Bhujbal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.