Disposed

Ashok Haridas Jagdale v. the Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Aug 2014WP/519/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to entertain a writ petition challenging a show cause notice because no reply was filed by the petitioner. The petition was disposed of with directions to file a reply and a fresh petition after the Collector's decision, while the related civil application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to file reply to show-cause notice within two weeks; dismissed civil application.

Ashok Haridas Jagdale Vs the Collector, Solapur and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

ash

wp-519.14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.519 OF 2014 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1570 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO.519 OF 2014

¶6

WP NO.519 OF 2014

¶7

Shri Ashok Haridas Jagdale. .. Petitioner Vs The Collector, Solapur & Others. .. Respondents – C.A. NO.1570 OF 2014

¶8

Rashtriya Girani Kamgar Sanch. .. Applicant In the matter between : Shri Ashok Haridas Jagdale. .. Petitioner Vs The Collector, Solapur and Others. .. Respondents

¶9

Shri Mayur Khandeparkar i/by S.B. Legal for the Petitioner. Shri Madhav J. Jamdar for the Applicant in CA No.1570 of 2011. Shri V.P. Malvankar, AGP “A” Panel for Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 and 9. Shri L.T. Satelkar for Respondent No.2. Shri Prajakt M. Arjunwadkar for Respondent No.6. Shri I.M. Khairdi for Respondent No.7. Shri P.P. Chavan i/by Little & Co for Respondent No.8.

¶10

CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ DATED : 21ST AUGUST 2014

¶11

P.C.

¶12

. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the

¶13

learned counsel representing the respective Respondents. The learned AGP appears for Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 and 9.

ash

wp-519.14

As far as substantive prayer clause (a) is concerned, the challenge is to the show cause notice dated 16^th August 2013 issued by the District Collector, Solapur, to the Petitioner. As far as clauses (i) to (v) of prayer clause (b) are concerned, the same cannot be considered on merits unless the show cause notice subject matter of challenge is disposed of. As far as prayer clauses (vi) to (vii) of prayer clause (b) are concerned, the Petitioner will have to be file a separate proceeding in accordance with law.

¶18

The Petitioner has not filed a reply to the impugned show

¶19

cause notice. The challenge to the show cause notice need not be entertained in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

We, therefore, decline to entertain this Petition. The Petition is disposed of by passing the following order.

¶21

ORDER :

¶22

(a) It will be open for the Petitioner to file a reply to the

¶23

show cause notice dated 16^th August 2013 within a period of two weeks from today;

ash

wp-519.14

(b) After considering the reply and after hearing all the concerned parties, the Collector shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on the said show cause notice within a period of two months from the date of filing of the reply to the said show cause notice by the Petitioner;

¶28

(c) it will be open for the Applicant in the Civil Application No.1570 of 2014 to apply for intervention before the Collector. We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the rights of the Applicant to seek audience from the Collector and it is for the Collector to decide whether the Applicant in the said Civil Application is entitled to be heard;

¶29

(d) The order passed on the show cause notice be communicated to the Petitioner;

¶30

(e) As far as clauses (i) to (v) incorporated in the prayer clause (b) of the Petition are concerned, we grant liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh Petition after a decision on the said show cause notice.

ash

wp-519.14

(f) It is obvious that if a decision on the show cause notice be adverse to the Petitioner, it will be open for the Petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law;

¶35

(g) As far as clauses (vi) to (vii) incorporated in the prayer clause (b) of the Petition are concerned, we grant liberty to the Petition to adopt an independent remedy in accordance with law;

¶36

(h) All the contentions on merits are kept open;

¶37

(i) The Petition is disposed of on above terms;

¶38

(j) Civil Application No.1570 of 2014 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of.

¶39

(G.S.KULKARNI, J)

¶40

( A.S. OKA, J )

Ashok Haridas Jagdale v. the Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Haridas Jagdale v. the Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Rajendra Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Saifan Khajabhai Mujawar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sambhajirao Shinde Sarvajanik Vachnalaya, through President, Bhimrao Jetyappa Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd. and Ors. Vs the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Smt. Pragna Ashok Patel Vs Shri. Ashok Khimjibhai Patel