Review petitioners sought recall of an ex facie beyond jurisdiction order admitting a writ petition on territorial jurisdiction ground. The court held the Principal Bench lacked jurisdiction and the petition should be heard by the Aurangabad Bench.
Order dated 13 June 2018 recalled; case transmitted to Aurangabad Bench.
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.
ppn 1 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.34389 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.13766 OF 2018
| 1. Prakash Vithalrao Kavthekar | ) |
|---|---|
| Age 38 years, Occ.Agril & Social Worker, | ) |
| R/o. Ukhanda, Tq.Patoda, District Beed. | ) |
| 2. Shivaji Eknath Pawar | ) |
| Age 41 years, Occ. Agril. | ) |
| R/o. At Zepewadi, Post Warni, | ) |
| Tq.Shirurkasar, District Beed | ) |
| 3. Smt.Ashwini W/o Dnyaneshwar Jarange | ) |
| Age 30 years, Occ.Agril & Social Worker, | ) |
| R/o. Kusllamb, Tq.Patoda, District Beed. | ) |
| 4. Smt.Sangita W/o Ramhari Maharnor | ) |
| Age 30 years, Occ.Agril & Social Worker, | ) |
| R/o. Dadegaon (Mahadevwadi), | ) |
| Tq.Patoda, District Beed. | ) |
| 5. Smt.Ashwini W/o Amar Nimbalkar | ) |
| Age 35 years, Occ.Agril & Social Worker, | ) |
| R/o. At Ashta (Harinarayan) | ) |
| Tq.Patoda, District Beed. | ) .. Petitioners |
| (Orig.Respt. Nos.4 to 7 & 9) |
ppn 2 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
Versus
| 1. Bajrang Manohar Sonavane | ) |
|---|---|
| Age 46 years, Occ.Agril & Social Worker, | ) |
| R/o.At Sarni, Post Javal-ban, | ) |
| Tq.Kaij, District Beed. | ) |
| 2. Smt. Mangal w/o Prakashrao Solanke | ) |
| Age 61 years, Occ.Agril & Social Worker, | ) |
| R/o. Mohikhed, Tq.Dharur, Dist. Beed. | ) |
| 3. Ajay Manikrao Munde | ) |
| Age 32 years, Occ.Agril & Social Worker, | ) |
| R/o.Nathra, Post.Kauthali, | ) |
| Tq.Parali, District Beed. | ) (Respt.Nos.1 to 3-Orig. Petitioners ) |
| 4. The State of Maharashtra | ) |
| Through Secretary Rural Development | ) |
| Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. | ) |
| 5. Hon'ble Cabinet Minister | ) |
| Rural Development Department | ) |
| Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. | ) |
| 6. Under Secretary State of Maharashtra | ) |
| Rural Development Department | ) |
| Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. | ) |
| ppn 3 | rp | wst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc |
|---|---|---|
| 7. The Collector Beed. | ) | |
| District Beed. | ) | |
| 8. The Chief Executive Officer, | ) | |
| Zilla Parishad Beed, District Beed. | ) | |
| 9. Smt. Mangal w/o Ganpat Doifode | ) | |
| Age 32 years, Occ. Agril. & Social Worker, | ) | |
| R/o. Jeet, Post Pimpalner, | ) | |
| Tq. & Dist. Beed. | ) | .. Respondents (Orig. Respondent Nos.1 to 3, 8, 10& 11) |
ALONG WITH REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.34391 OF 2018 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.13766 OF 2018
Versus
| ppn 4 | rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc |
|---|---|
| 3. Ajay Manikrao Munde | ) |
| Age 32 years, Occ.Agril & Social Worker, | ) |
| R/o.Nathra, Post.Kauthali, | ) |
| Tq.Parali, District Beed. | ) (Respt.Nos.1 to 3-Orig. Petitioners ) |
| 4. The State of Maharashtra | ) |
| Through Secretary Rural Development | ) |
| Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. | ) |
| 5. Hon'ble Cabinet Minister | ) |
| Rural Development Department | ) |
| Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. | ) |
| 6. Under Secretary State of Maharashtra | ) |
| Rural Development Department | ) |
| Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. | ) |
| 7. The Collector Beed. | ) |
| District Beed. | ) |
| 8. The Chief Executive Officer, | ) |
| Zilla Parishad Beed, District Beed. | ) |
| 9. Prakash s/o Vithalrao Kavthekar | ) |
| Age 38 years, Occ.Agril & Social Worker, | ) |
| R/o. Ukhanda, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed. | ) |
| ppn 5 | rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc |
|---|---|
| 10. Shivaji Eknath Pawar | ) |
| Age 41 years, Occ. Agril. | ) |
| R/o. At Zepewadi, Post Warni, | ) |
| Tq.Shirurkasar, District Beed | ) |
| 11. Smt.Ashwini W/o Dnyaneshwar Jarang | e) |
| Age 30 years, Occ.Agril & Social Worker, | ) |
| R/o. Kusllamb, Tq.Patoda, District Beed. | ) |
| 12. Smt.Sangita W/o Ramhari Maharnor | ) |
| Age 30 years, Occ.Agril & Social Worker, | ) |
| R/o. Dadegaon (Mahadevwadi), | ) |
| Tq.Patoda, District Beed. | ) |
| 13. Smt.Ashwini W/o Amar Nimbalkar | ) |
| Age 35 years, Occ.Agril & Social Worker, | ) |
| R/o. At Ashta (Harinarayan) | ) |
| Tq.Patoda, District Beed. | ) .. Respondents (Orig. Respt. Nos.1 to 7, 9 to 11) |
Mr.Vasantrao D. Salunkhe a/w Mr.A.S. Kakade for the petitioners/ original respondent nos.4 to 7 and 9 in Review Petition (St.) No.34389 of 2018.
None for the petitioner/original respondent no.8 in Review Petition (St.) No.34391 of 2018.
Mr.S.S. Kanetkar for the respondents/original petitioners in both the review petitions.
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. RESERVED ON : 10th December 2018 PRONOUNCED ON : 21st December 2018
ppn 6 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
Judgment : -
. By these two review petitions, the original respondent nos.4 to 7, 9 and the original respondent no.8 have prayed for recall of the order dated 13th June 2018 passed by this Court rejecting the plea of territorial jurisdiction raised by the State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.13766 of 2018 and entertaining the said writ petition before the Principal Bench of Bombay High Court.
ppn 7 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
meeting dated 7th March,2017 held by the Cabinet Minister, Rural Development Department, it was unanimously decided that the Gat/Front/ Aghadi had to be established amongst the successful members/councilors of Nationalist Congress Party of Zilla Parishad, Beed and to elect the leader of Gat/Aghadi for the purpose of taking decision of the parties amongst the councilors of Gat in Zilla Parishad, Beed.
ppn 8 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
Party of the Zilla Parishad, Beed for the post of President and Vice President respectively.
ppn 9 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
post of the disqualified members from the respective constituency. The review petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Minister, Rural Development Department against the said order passed by the learned Collector, Beed and applied for stay of the order passed by the learned Collector, Beed. The learned Minister passed a stay order which was communicated by the Under Secretary to the Collector, Beed.
ppn 10 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
2018 remitting the matter back to the learned Minister for fresh consideration on the appeal filed by the respondent nos. 4 to 9 therein before the authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that considering the controversy, the learned Minister may hear the appeal itself within reasonable time. The writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging the validity of the amending Act is still pending. The petitioners filed an application for framing preliminary issues before the learned Minister. The learned Minister passed an order dated 19th May,2018 granting stay to the order of the learned Collector, Beed dated 16th October, 2017.
ppn 11 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
review petitioners were not present before this court when the said order was passed.
ppn 12 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
petitioners have filed two separate review petitions.
ppn 13 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
Bench of Bombay High Court challenging the order passed by the learned collector in Writ Petition No.1 of 2017. He also invited my attention to the order dated 20th September,2017 passed by the Aurangabad Bench of this court in Writ Petition No.11429 of 2017 filed by some of the review petitioners challenging the order passed by the learned collector. Learned counsel also invited my attention to the order and judgment dated 4th May, 2018 passed by the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.14213 of 2017 filed by the original petitioners thereby impugning the order dated 18th October,2017 passed by the learned Minister (Rural Development), State of Maharashtra granting stay to the decision rendered by the learned collector, Beed on 16th October,2017.
ppn 14 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
passed by the learned Minister was though passed at Mumbai, the original petitioners had rightly filed writ petition before the Aurangabad Bench since the disputes arising in the Beed District was within the territorial jurisdiction of the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court.
ppn 15 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
caveats filed by the review petitioners which were filed before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court arising out of the stay order granted by the learned Minister (Rural Development), State of Maharashtra. He submits that after service of the caveats filed by the review petitioners before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, the original petitioners deliberately filed the proceedings before the Principal Bench of this court which was totally without jurisdiction.
ppn 16 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
filed at Pune. Thus this court held that the writ petition could be entertained by the Appellate Side of the Principal seat of the Bombay High Court. It is submitted that in this case, the first proceeding was filed before the learned collector, Beed. The said judgment in case of Haji Abdul Razak Yasim Patel (supra) is thus not applicable to the facts of this case.
ppn 17 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
undergone one round of litigation before the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court, this writ petition filed by the original petitioners before the Principal Bench could not be entertain having no territorial jurisdiction.
Rizwan Memon and others vs. State of Goa and others, 2017(6) Mh.L.J.(Cri.) 204 and in particular paragraphs 14, 21 and 24 in support of the submission that in view of the entire cause of action having arisen
ppn 18 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc at District Beed, the Principal Bench of this court could not have entertained the writ petition filed by the original petitioners.
the other hand submits that none of the mandatory conditions prescribed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for seeking review of the order passed by this court are satisfied by the review petitioners in these two review petitions. He submits that in this case neither it is pleaded by the review petitioners that the review petitioners had discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the review petitioners or could not be produced by them at the time when the decree was passed or order made or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason and
ppn 19 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
thus order dated 13th June, 2018 cannot to be recalled. He submits that
both the review petitions filed by the review petitioners shall be dismissed on that ground itself.
distinguished the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
ppn 20 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
Union of India vs. Adani Exports Limited, 2002 AIR (SC) 126 on the ground that the facts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment were totally different. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the High Court at Ahmedabad has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition on the ground that since the party had already undergone one round of litigation before the High Court at Ahmedabad and thereafter in the appeals before the court, it is appropriate to request the High Court to dispose of these appeals as early as possible.
ppn 21 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc petitioners.
ppn 22 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS
ppn 23 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
the writ petition impugning the order passed by the learned Cabinet Minister, (Rural Development), State of Maharashtra at Mumbai before the Aurangabad Bench of this court. It is not the case of the original petitioners that the writ petition filed by the original petitioners before the Aurangabad Bench was not maintainable and was wrongly filed before the Aurangabad Bench and the order passed by the Aurangabad Bench was without jurisdiction.
ppn 24 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
Court Advocates Association (supra) has held that the expression 'cause of action' has acquired a judicially settled meaning in the restricted sense. Cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right of the immediate occasion for the action. It is held that in the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right but the infraction coupled with the right itself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case of a dispute arising whether an individual case or cases should be filed and heard at one of the Benches of the High Court, the same has to be found out by applying the test from which district the case arises, that is, in
ppn 25 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
which district the cause of action can be said to have arisen and then exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In my view the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association (supra) squarely applies to the facts of this case. In my view since the principle and the original cause of action had arisen within the Beed District, under Rule 2 of the Chapter XXXI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, the writ petition could be filed only before the Aurangabad Bench and not before the Principal Bench.
Energy Limited (supra) has held that every Bench of the High Court should scrupulously follow the relevant rules and should not violate statutory provisions specifying its jurisdiction, else the sanctity of the rules relating to distribution of cases between the Single, the Division Bench and larger Benches will be lost. In my view the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited (supra) would apply to the facts of this case. Since the cause of action in this case had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Aurangabad Bench and Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules clearly provides that the writ petition arising
ppn 26 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc out of such district could be filed only before the Aurangabad Bench, the Principal Bench cannot entertain such petition falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Aurangabad Bench unless the Hon'ble Chief Justice exercises its discretionary power. This court cannot violate the statutory provisions relating to distribution of cases between different Benches.
ppn 27 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
be said to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of Bombay. It is held that this Court would be slow in entertaining matters which have arisen within the jurisdiction of another Bench/ Principal Seat as per the Appellate Side Rule. It is accordingly held that the petitioners could approach the Principal Seat and there were no exceptional circumstances shown for exercising jurisdiction before the Goa Bench. In my view, the principles of law laid down by the Division bench of this Court in the said judgment would squarely apply to the facts of this case. In this case also, the entire cause of action and more particularly original proceedings were filed before the Collector, Beed and thus the only Aurangabad bench of this Court could entertain the petition filed by the original petitioner and not the Principal Bench.
ppn 28 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc Pune only and not before any other authority. The said permission was rejected only by the Charity Commissioner, Pune. The original cause of action having arisen at Pune, the said matter was rightly filed before the Appellate Side of Principal Bench of this Court. In my view, the said judgment is clearly distinguishable in the facts of this case. In my view, in this case, both the parties were admittedly the resident of Beed. Election was also held at Beed. The original proceedings were filed before the learned Collector, Beed. The Aurangabad Bench only thus could have entertained the writ petition.
ppn 29 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 11822 of 2018 delivered on 4th December 2018 has held that the constitutional courts, being courts of record, the jurisdiction to recall their own orders is inherent by virtue of the fact that they are superior courts of record. In my view, the original petitioner not having brought to the notice of this Court when the matter appeared before this Court on 13th June 2018 that the earlier three petitions were filed by the parties before the Aurangabad bench of this Court and out of those three petitions, one of the petition was filed by the original petitioners themselves arising out of the order passed by the learned Cabinet Minister, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. The review petitioners were not present before this Court when the said matter was heard. In view of extreme urgency shown to this Court, this Court only heard the petitioner and the learned AGP. In my view, since the Principal Bench could not have entertained the said writ petition in view of the Principal Bench having lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate upon the said writ petition, the order passed by this Court on 13th June 2018 deserves to be recalled.
ppn 30 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
apparent on the face of the record. There are also sufficient reasons for recall of the order dated 13th June 2018 in view of the said order having been passed without jurisdiction by the Principal Bench of this Court. I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the original petitioner that none of the conditions prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are satisfied by the review petitioners in this case.
that the writ petition filed by his client before the Aurangabad Bench
ppn 31 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc of this Court was also arising out of the order passed by the learned Cabinet Minister, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai which order was admittedly passed at Mumbai. In my view, if the submission of the learned counsel for the original petitioner is accepted, it would be in ex facie violation of the Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960 and also in gross violation of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court while entertaining the writ petition has to consider the place of the original cause of action and not the place of the order passed by the Appellate authority or the revisional authority.
(i) It is declared that the Principal Bench of this Court has no
ppn 32 rpwst-34389.18 wt34391.18(j).doc
jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate upon the subject matter of the Writ Petition No.13766 of 2018. Aurangabad Bench of this Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate upon the subject matter of the said writ petition.
(iv) Ad-interim order passed by this Court on 13th June 2018 to continue till 10th January 2019.
as to costs.
(vi) Parties as well as the office to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
R.D. DHANUKA, J.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Principal Bench of the Bombay High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition arising from a cause of action in Beed District.
Whether the order of the Principal Bench dated 13th June 2018 is liable to be recalled due to lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the conditions for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC are satisfied despite the court's lack of jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Haji Abdul Razak Yasim Patel vs. Bara Imam Masjid Trust & Ors.Distinguished¶41
Haji Abdul Razak Yasim Patel vs. Bara Imam Masjid Trust & Ors. 2006(1) Mh.L.J.184 · Who else cites this
Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association vs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶31
Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association vs. Union of India, 2001 AIR (SC) 416 · Who else cites this
Union of India vs. Adani Exports LimitedDistinguished¶34
Union of India vs. Adani Exports Limited, 2002 AIR (SC) 126 · Who else cites this
Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited vs. Jan Chetna & OthersRelied on¶33
Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited vs. Jan Chetna & Others, 2013 (10) SCC 574 · Who else cites this
Mohamed Rizwan Memon and others vs. State of Goa and othersDistinguished¶35
Mohamed Rizwan Memon and others vs. State of Goa and others, 2017(6) Mh.L.J.(Cri.) 204 · Who else cites this
Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde and another vs. State of Maharashtra and othersRelied on¶37
Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1994 SC 1673 · Who else cites this
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & ANR. Vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd. & Ors.Relied on¶38
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & ANR. Vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 11822 of 2018
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Prakash Vithalrao Kavthekar
Shivaji Eknath Pawar
Smt. Ashwini W/o Dnyaneshwar Jarange
Smt. Sangita W/o Ramhari Maharnor
Bajrang Manohar Sonavane
R.D. Dhanuka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
