Dismissed

Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors. v. Babu Maruti Dukare and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Sept 2014CAW/1825/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench rejected an application to modify prior orders directing that the Deputy Commissioner of Pune not be entrusted with other duties during a fraud enquiry. The court disapproved an administrative order appointing an Additional Collector instead, viewing it as a breach of the final court order.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for modification of the Civil Application is rejected, and the application is dismissed.

Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra Revenue… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

pvr 1/6 19caw1825-14-wp533-wp2961.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1825 OF 2014

¶5

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.3238 OF 1989

¶7

1.Secretary to the Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Applicants. V/s.

¶8

1.Babu Maruti Dukare & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.533 OF 2014

¶11

The Saswad Mali Sugar Factory Ltd. ...Petitioners. V/s. 1.The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO.2961 OF 2014

¶13

1.Shri.Rajendra Gopalrao Girme ...Petitioner. V/s. 1.The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶14

Mr.N.P.Deshpande, AGP for the Applicants.

¶15

Mr.M.L.Patil, for Respondents/Orig.Petitioner in WP no.3238/89.

¶16

Mr.P.B.Shah i/b. Mr.K.P.Shah, for the Petitioners in WP no.533/14 and WP no.2961/14.

¶17

--- CORAM: A.S. OKA & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 10^th SEPTEMBER, 2014.

¶18

6/6

¶19

pvr 2/6 19caw1825-14-wp533-wp2961.doc

¶20

P.C. :

¶21

Heard the learned AGP appearing for the applicants, the learned Counsel appearing for the original petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition no.3238 of 1989 and the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition nos.797, 798 and 799 of 1991. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition no.3238 of 1989 has opposed the said application. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition nos.797, 798 and 799 of 1991 submits to the order of the Court. The prayer is for modification of the following directions issued by this Court while finally disposing of aforesaid Writ Petition no.3238 of 1989 by judgment and order dated 22^nd December,2006:-

¶22

“21. In Writ Petition no.3238 of 1989, respondent nos.1 and 2 – the State of Maharashtra and Commissioner, Pune Division are hereby directed not to entrust any other official duty to the Deputy Commissioner, Pune Division, who is designated as Enquiry Officer in these matters so that he may fully concentrate and dispose off these matters as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of this order. The records lying with the Special Judge, Pandharpur as also other relevant records required in these matters shall be urgently placed and

¶23

6/6

¶24

3/6 19caw1825-14-wp533-wp2961.doc

¶25

handed over to the Deputy Commissioner, Pune Division designated as Enquiry Officer.”

¶26

It appears that an order was made by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division on 4^th January,2012 by which he purported to appoint the Additional Collector, Solapur as an Inquiry Officer in the place of Deputy Commissioner, Pune Division. The said order is passed on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner is entrusted with the work of rehabilitation.

¶27

Only ground on which the modification is sought by the Applicants of the directions contained in paragraph 21 of the final judgment in the Writ Petition is that the Divisional Commissioner has already appointed the Additional Collector, Solapur to act as an Inquiry Officer in the place of the Deputy Commissioner, Pune Division. Thus, reliance is sought on the subsequent order of the Divisional Commissioner which is completely contrary to the directions issued by this Court. The learned AGP pointed out that the State Government permitted the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division to pass the said order.

¶28

It may be necessary to make reference to the prayer clause (a) made in this application, which reads thus:-

¶29

“(a) That this Hon'ble Court may please accept

¶30

6/6

¶31

pvr 4/6 19caw1825-14-wp533-wp2961.doc

¶32

unconditional apology and suitably modify the order dated 22.12.2006 and allow Shri.Ashok Kakade, Additional Collector to continue the said enquiry which was initially entrusted to Deputy Commissioner, Pune by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶33

The Division Bench of this Court while appointing the Deputy Commissioner, Pune as Inquiry Officer has given reasons. The said reasons are recorded in paragraph 19 of the judgment in the Writ Petition. The relevant portion from paragraph 19 reads thus:-

¶34

“It is also pointed out that now the Assistant Commissioner is designated as a Deputy Commissioner of Pune Division. In view of this, we are satisfied that the Deputy Commissioner, Pune Division is sufficiently senior and competent officer to hold such an enquiry. Taking into consideration the huge fraud, forgeries and the large number of people involved in the matter, the Enquiry Officer certainly needs some time. In our opinion, the said Enquiry Officer should not be entrusted with any other official duty so that he may fully concentrate on these enquiries and we may expect that he will complete the same within six months from the date of this order.”

¶35

In the face of the reasons given by this Court for appointing the Deputy Commissioner, Pune Division as the Enquiry Officer, neither the State

¶36

6/6

¶37

pvr 5/6 19caw1825-14-wp533-wp2961.doc

¶38

Government nor the Divisional Commissioner could have done exercise of appointing Additional Collector of Solapur as an Enquiry officer. The said action again is completely contrary to letter and spirit of the final order of the Division Bench of this Court.

¶39

The Divisional Commissioner has passed an order appointing an Inquiry officer completely contrary to the directions of the Division Bench of this Court. The present application has been filed on the basis of the said order which is completely contrary to the order of this Court. When this Court directed that the Deputy Commissioner shall not be entrusted with any other official duty, on the pretext that the Deputy Commissioner is required to discharge some other duty, the Divisional Commissioner proceeded to pass another order appointing Additional Collector as an Inquiry officer.

¶40

The present application is based on the said illegal order passed by the Divisional Commissioner on 4^th January,2012. Apart from the stating that the Additional Collector, Solapur is of the same rank as Deputy Commissioner, no other reason has been set out in the present application for seeking modification of the order of this Court. It appears to us that the present application is nothing but an attempt to justify the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner on 4^th January,2012 in breach of the final order of

¶41

6/6

¶42

pvr 6/6 19caw1825-14-wp533-wp2961.doc

¶43

this Court. Therefore, the prayer made by the applicants cannot be accepted on the basis of the grounds set out in the Application. Hence, Civil Application no.1825 of 2014 is rejected.

¶44

Place the Writ Petition no.533 of 2014 under the caption of “Fresh Admission” on 1^st October,2014. If the files of this petition are not traced out within a period of one week from today, the Registry shall reconstruct the files.

¶45

Place the Writ Petition no.2961 of 2014 alongwith the Writ Petition no.533 of 2014 on 1^st October,2014.

¶46

6/6

Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors. v. Babu Maruti Dukare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors. v. Babu Maruti Dukare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Ramesh Kuber Savalwade Vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Walwa Division, Islampur and Ors.

Mrs. Sucheta Sharad Patil Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Shree Pandurang Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs the Sugar Commissioner, Maharashtra State and Anr.

Siddhivinayak Data Entry and Processing Unit, through Shri. Santosh Sudam Nimbalkar Vs the Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Altaf Salim Shikalgar Vs Raju Laxman Gavali and Ors.

Shri Baburao K.Arekar and Anr. Vs Grampanchayat Dandi and Others