Partly allowed

Bhanabhai Kariabhai, through Power of Attorney Holder, Shri. Mukesh Patel and Anr. v. Shri. Pramod Keshrichand Shah and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2014WP/6674/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench quashed the order dated 17th April 2013 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Daman. The impugned order was restored to the Tribunal's file with an extension to deal with the matters within six months, giving priority to disposal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Revision Applications restored; Directions for disposal within six months.

Bhanabhai Kariabhai, through Power of Attorney Holder… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

[email protected]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.6641 OF 2013

¶4

Champaben Mohan and Others ...Petitioner vs. Pramod Kesrichand Shah and Others ...Respondents

¶5

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7057 OF 2013

¶6

Ramubhai Paragbhai Halpati ...Petitioner vs. Pramod Kesrichand Shah and Others ...Respondents

¶7

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7055 OF 2013 Dhanaban Jivan ...Petitioner vs. Pramod Kesrichand Shah and Others ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7053 OF 2013 Jogi Ramchhod ...Petitioner vs. Pramod Kesrichand Shah and Others ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6671 OF 2013 Ramanbhai Bechharbhai Patel ...Petitioner vs. Pramod Kesrichand Shah and Others ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6642 OF 2013 Gangaben Nanu ...Petitioner vs. Pramod Kesrichand Shah and Others ...Respondents Vishal Parekar 1/4

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.7058 OF 2013

Bava Dheba

...Petitioner

vs.

Pramod Kesrichand Shah and Others

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

Mr. Kishor Patil, for the Petitioners Mr. Ajit Kenjale, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 23. Mr. S.S. Deshmukh, for Respondent Nos. 24 and 25.

¶17

CORAM : A. S. OKA & M. S. SONAK, JJ.

¶18

DATE : OCTOBER 30, 2018

¶19

P.C.:

¶20

. Not on board. Taken on board.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for all the private Respondents on instruction state that the said Respondents have no objection if order dated 17^th April, 2013 passed by the Chairman, Administrative Tribunal, Daman in Revision Applications preferred by the Petitioners is set aside and the Revision Applications are remitted to the Administrative Tribunal. He submits that directions be issued to the Administrative Tribunal to decide the Revision Applications on merits as expeditiously as possible. The learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the Writ Petitioners have no objection for adopting such a course.

2/4

Vishal Parekar

The learned counsel appearing for the Mamlatdar and the Collector of Daman has submitted the orders of the Court.

¶26

Considering the nature of the impugned orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal, the course suggested by the learned counsel appearing for the private Respondents deserves to be adopted.

¶27

Accordingly, we pass the following order.

¶28

(1) The impugned order dated 17^th April, 2013 passed by the learned Chairman, Administrative Tribunal, Daman are hereby quashed and set aside. All Revision Applications are restored to the file of the Administrative Tribunal, Daman;

¶29

(2) We direct the Petitioners and private Respondents to appear before the learned Chairman, Administrative Tribunal on 3^rd December, 2018 at 11.00 am for fixing the schedule of hearing;

¶30

(3) As all the parties to the Revision Applications are before the Court, it will not be necessary for the Administrative Tribunal to issue fresh notices;

¶31

(4) Considering the fact that the Revision Applications arise out of orders passed by the Collector in the year 2008, the Administrative Tribunal will give necessary priority to the disposal of the Revision Applications and shall endeavor to dispose of the

3/4

Vishal Parekar

same within maximum period of six months from the appearance of the parties;

¶36

(5) All contentions on merits in Revision Applications are

¶37

kept open;

¶38

(6) The learned Chairman, Administrative Tribunal to act upon an authenticated copy of the judgment and order.

¶39

(7) We make it clear that the Administrative Tribunal will proceed to hear and dispose of Revision Applications on merits without insisting on production of certified copies of the impugned orders of the Collector.

¶40

(8) Rule is made partly absolute on above terms.

¶41

(M. S. SONAK, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

¶42

4/4

¶43

Vishal Parekar

Bhanabhai Kariabhai, through Power of Attorney Holder, Shri. Mukesh Patel and Anr. v. Shri. Pramod Keshrichand Shah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanabhai Kariabhai, through Power of Attorney Holder, Shri. Mukesh Patel and Anr. v. Shri. Pramod Keshrichand 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

Mr. Yeshavant Manohar Dhaygode and Ors. Vs Mr. Chandrakant Jairam Gudewar and Ors.

Dr. Koustubh Kamlakar Mench Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission, through Secretary and Ors.

Union of India, through Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Cbec and Ors. Vs Manoj Jain

Sandeep Sunil Kumar Lohariya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mansukh Chhiba, through Power of Attorney Holder, Shri. Mukesh Patel and Ors. Vs Shri. Pramod Keshrichand Shah and Ors.

Shri. Jagu Hari, through Power of Attorney Holder, Shri. Mukesh Patel Vs Shri. Pramod Keshrichand Shah and Ors.