This court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner alleged non-hearing by a Tribunal. The court held the petitioner should file a review petition before the Tribunal instead of pursuing writ proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
wp.1151-2015
Dond
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1151 OF 2015
Shri Mahesh s/o Hambirrao Shinde ..Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents
Mr. A.V. Chatuphale for Petitioner. Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Sagar A. Mane for Respondent No.3.
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & A.S. GADKARI, JJ. DATE : 5th March 2015.
P.C.
Heard.
2 The grievance of the Petitioner is that he was not heard by the
Tribunal. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that
the Petitioner was served with the Advocate's notice. The learned Counsel
for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner did not receive notice from the Tribunal.
3 In the facts we are of the view that the Petitioner is entitled to
take out appropriate proceedings by way of Review Petition before the Tribunal. If such Petition is filed, the Tribunal would deal with the same on
its own merits. We do not express any opinion.
2
wp.1151-2015
3 The Writ Petition is disposed of.
(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lack of personal hearing by the Tribunal constitutes a grievance warranting writ intervention or a review petition.
Whether the Petitioner was properly served with the Tribunal's notice.
Shri Mahesh s/o Hambirrao Shinde
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
NARESH H. PATIL
A.S. GADKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
