Allowed

Matoshree Public Library, Wathar, through Chairman and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Dept and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Jun 2014WP/4355/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenging revocation of public library recognition. Court found that recognition was revoked without recording reasons or considering the petitioners' reply, violating Rule 8 regarding notice and hearing. Impugned orders quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned orders dated 31st December, 2013; court directed respondent to hear petitioners and pass fresh order within three months.

Matoshree Public Library, Wathar, through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

wp-4355.14

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4355 OF 2014

¶6

Matoshree Public Library and others … Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and another

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, for Petitioners. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

¶12

A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 26^th JUNE, 2014

¶14

P.C.

¶15

1] Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶16

and the learned AGP for the respondents. On the earlier date, time was granted till today to the learned AGP to take instructions. However, the learned AGP has not received any instructions.

¶17

2] The petitioners are the recognised Public Libraries. By the orders impugned in this petition (Exhibit “E” collectively), the second respondent has revoked the recognition of the petitioners with effect from the financial year 201314.

¶18

1 of 4

¶19

2 wp-4355.14

¶20

3] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited our attention to the show cause notices issued to the petitioners (Exhibit “C” collectively) and individual reply of the petitioners (Exhibit “D” collectively). His submission is that apart from the fact that the contentions raised in the reply have not been considered by the second respondent, an opportunity of being heard has not been granted to the petitioners before passing the drastic orders of withdrawal of the recognition. He invited our attention to the Maharashtra Public Libraries (Recognition for GrantinAid and Building and Equipment Grants) Rules, 1970 ( for short “the said Rules) and Rule 8 thereof in particular. He submitted that the impugned orders are passed in breach of the Rule 8.

¶21

4] As the learned AGP has not received instructions, we have carefully perused the show cause notices and reply of each petitioner. It is pointed out in the reply that either the deficiencies alleged in the show cause notices do not exist or that there are compliances made. Perusal of the impugned orders show that there is absolutely no consideration of the reply submitted by each petitioner. There is no finding recorded in the impugned order that any particular breach on the part of the petitioners has been established. Rule 8 contemplates that the recognition can be cancelled on the ground of breach of

¶22

2 of 4

¶23

3 wp-4355.14

¶24

conditions of recognition or breach of conditions specified in the Certificate of Recognition. Rule 8 specifically provides that the Director of Libraries can pass order of cancellation of recognition for the reasons to be recorded in writing and after giving the Management of the Library an opportunity of being heard. We find that in the impugned orders, reasons have not been recorded by the second respondent dealing with each and every breach alleged and the reply filed by each petitioner. Therefore, we are of the view that the second respondent has not complied with the provisions of Rule 8 of the said Rules. Only on this ground, we propose to set aside the impugned orders and direct the second respondent to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.

¶25

5] Accordingly, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following order :

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) The impugned orders dated 31st December, 2013 (Exhibit “E” collectively) are quashed and set aside only on the ground of breach of Rule 8 of the said Rules. We direct the representative of the petitioners to appear before the second respondent on 8th July, 2014 at 11.00 am for fixing the date of hearing on the show cause notices;

3 of 4

wp-4355.14

(ii) The second respondent shall grant reasonable time to the

¶32

petitioners to file documents in support of their contentions;

¶33

(iii) After giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, the second respondent shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from 8th July, 2014;

¶34