Allowed

Shri. Moreshwar Raghunath Deshmukh v. the State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Dec 2014WP/3581/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed amendment of pleadings to enable challenge against the State Government despite original prayer being against JNPT. Consequently, two orders rejecting the amendment and disposing the original application were quashed, restoring the case for fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders rejecting amendment and disposing original application quashed; amendment allowed within four weeks; original application restored for re-hearing with expedited hearing.

Shri. Moreshwar Raghunath Deshmukh Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

34-wp3581.13.sxw

¶2

ssm 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3581 OF 2013

¶6

Moreshwar Raghunath Deshmukh

¶7

….Petitioner.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶10

….Respondents.

¶11

Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Mr. C.P. Yadav, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy for Respondent No.4.

¶12

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND N.M. JAMDAR, JJ. DATE : 1 DECEMBER 2014.

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶15

Heard finally, by consent of the parties.

¶16

2 The learned Members of Maharashtra Administrative

¶17

Tribunal (MAT), by impugned order dated 23 April 2012, rejected a Miscellaneous Application for amendment filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner had sought prayer/relief referring to posting order dated 11

¶18

June 2009 issued by Respondent No.3 (The Deputy Director of Land

¶19

1/4

¶20

ssm 2 34-wp3581.13.sxw

¶21

Records, Konkan Region, Mumbai), but rejected by stating it to be changing the basic prayers/reliefs against the JNPT (Respondent No.4). The learned Tribunal on 9 May 2012, even disposed of the Original Application filed by the Petitioner, for want of jurisdiction.

¶22

3 The Petitioner has already retired, pending the Original Application. However, we are inclined to remand the matter, as the Petitioner's relief, if any, against the State Government-Respondent No.3, subject to hearing both the parties, cannot be denied merely because at the time of filing of Original Application, relief was sought mainly against the JNPT and not against the State. The objection was raised about the maintainability of the Original Application. By the Miscellaneous Application, the Petitioner sought to bring on record, a related challenge dealing with posting order dated 11 June 2009, of Respondent No. 3 (the State) and try to rectify the defects in pleadings. This aspect, therefore, needs to be adjudicated as prayed, may not against the JNPT, but against the other Respondents, as prayed, therefore, at this stage, we are not inclined to accept the objection/submission of the learned counsel appearing for the JNPT, to deny amendment, which is necessary to claim reliefs against the

¶23

2/4

¶24

ssm 3 34-wp3581.13.sxw

¶25

State. Once the amendment is allowed, the original Application also requires to be considered on merits.

¶26

4 Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and in the interest of justice and in view of the averments made in paragraph No. 9 of the Original Application, and as the Petitioner has already referred to the posting order and now through this amendment specific challenge is raised, no reason to deny the opportunity. Therefore, we are inclined to quash both the orders as both are interconnected.

¶27

5 Therefore, by keeping all points open, including the point of limitation and/or maintainability of the original Application against the JNPT, we are inclined to grant the amendment so claimed. The amendment to be carried out within four weeks.

¶28

6 Resultantly, the following order:-

¶29

ORDER

¶30

a) Impugned order dated 23 April 2012 passed in

¶31

Miscellaneous Application No. 468 of 2011 in

3/4

34-wp3581.13.sxw

ssm 4

Original Application No. 243 of 2011 and impugned

¶36

order dated 9 May 2012 passed in Original Application No. 243 of 2011 are quashed and set aside.

¶37

b) Miscellaneous Application No. 468 of 2011 is accordingly allowed.

¶38

c) Original Application No. 243 of 2011 is accordingly restored to file for re-hearing and fresh order. Hearing expedited. d) Writ Petition is allowed. e) All points are kept open. f) Rule made absolute, accordingly. g) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶40

4/4

Shri. Moreshwar Raghunath Deshmukh v. the State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Moreshwar Raghunath Deshmukh v. the State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept 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

Shri. Ajit Shivaji Bhujbal Vs the Chairman, Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Anr.

Smt. Monica Pradeepkumar Pole Vs the Honble High Court of Mumbai

Shri. Ashok Kisan Kumavat Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, through Chief Executive Officer and Anr.

Nitin Ashok Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Co-Operative Dept and Ors.

Maharashtra Mantralaya Officers Assocation, through President, Mr. R. K. Dhanwade and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue), Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Shri. Sanjay Eknath Baviskar Vs the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran (M.J.P.), through Member Secretary and Anr.