Dismissed

Sunil Yashwant Rokade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Apr 2018WP/5574/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought correction to an impugned order regarding a remand to an Assistant Registrar instead of a Special Recovery Officer. The single-judge bench refused to entertain the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the error before the quasi-judicial authority first.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty to take appropriate steps before the revisional authority.

Sunil Yashwant Rokade Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 919-wpst-13241.16.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 13241 OF 2016

¶4

Sunil Yashwant Rokade … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents …..

¶5

Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra for Petitioner. Mr. S. D. Rayarikar AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 5.

¶6

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.

¶7

DATE : 27^th APRIL, 2018

¶8

P. C.:

¶9

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶10

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that in the impugned order dated 30/09/2015 it is incorrectly recorded by the Revisional Authority that the Petitioner agreed to refer the case to the Special Recovery Officer who was impleaded as Respondent No.3 in the revision application. He submits that what was agreed was a remand to the Assistant Registrar who was Respondent No.2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this is the only correction which the Petitioner seeks in this Petition.

¶11

1 of 2

¶12

Shridhar Sutar

¶13

919-wpst-13241.16.doc

¶14

Since, the impugned order specifically states that during the course of hearing the applicant had agreed for reference of the case to the Special Recovery Officer, it is only appropriate that the Petitioner moves the revisional authority and seeks for appropriate clarification/correction. The record, even before a quasi-judicial authority is sacrosanct and the same cannot be questioned for the first time by instituting an appeal or a petition before the higher forum. The party who alleges that there has been some wrong recording, is required to approach the authority which has made the order in the first instance. This, in fact, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S.Nayak and another reported in 1988 AIR 1531. It has been held that this principle will also apply to the records before the quasi-judicial authority.

¶15

For aforesaid reasons, this petition cannot be entertained. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to take appropriate steps before the revisional authority.

¶16

With liberty as aforesaid this petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶17

All contentions for all parties are kept open.

¶18

2 of 2

¶19

Shridhar Sutar

Sunil Yashwant Rokade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Yashwant Rokade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Damu Ganpat Wadhane

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Ramchandra Yadavrao Parekar

The State of Maharashtra Vs Tukaram Krishna Jadhav

Smt. Asha Shantaram Kolaskar Vs Shri. Gurunath Bhagwan Kumbhar and Ors.

Madhukar Kanu Gaikwar and Ors. Vs the Additional District Collector and Ors.

Prakash Tejumal Aswani Vs the Chairman / Secretary, Bobby Pathak Avanue, Chs Ltd. and Anr.