Partly allowed

Shree Siddnath Milk Producers Society Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Land Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Feb 2018WP/6064/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioners were not afforded a complete opportunity of being heard due to lack of specific details in show cause notices and materials. The court directed the issuance of proper notices and an opportunity for a personal hearing within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direct that petitioners be issued show cause notices with details of allegations and documents, granted an opportunity of personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within three months.

Shree Siddnath Milk Producers Society Ltd. and Anr. Vs… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1/5 (3)WP-6064-16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.6064 OF 2016

¶4

Shree Siddnath Milk Producers Society Ltd and Anr .. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Land Revenue and Forest Department .. Respondent

¶5

Mr.P.A. Pol with Mr.S.S.Suryavanshi, R.M.Darvesh, Mr.Ranjit S. Hatkar i/b Pol Legal Jurisdiction for the petitioners.

¶6

Mr.B.V.Samant, AGP for the State.

¶7

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT.BHARATI H.DANGRE,JJ.

¶8

DATED : 16^th FEBRUARY, 2018

¶9

P.C :-

¶10

1 The petitioners have operated, on the own

¶11

showing of the respondents and who are officers of the State

¶12

Government together with the State Government, a cattle

¶13

camp at which shelter was provided to the cattle which was

¶14

not looked after and virtually abandoned by the farmers. This

¶15

Tilak

¶16

2/5 (3)WP-6064-16

¶17

unforeseen and unfortunate situation occurred on account of drought in the State of Maharashtra during the years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The area is known to be drought prone. The petitioner says he operated such a cattle camp and submitted the bills. It may be that in relation to one bill, a show cause notice was issued and the amount is withheld, but in relation to other three bills, neither any show cause notice was issued nor any order is passed, but the amount is still withheld. The petitioners have to recover, in all, according to Shri Pol, a sum of Rs.26 lakhs approximately.

¶18

2 On the other hand, reliance is placed by the learned AGP on the affidavit-in-reply and the statements therein while not disputing that the petitioner society approached the Collector, District Solapur for permission to run the cattle camp in Sangola Taluka. The permission was granted on terms and conditions. There is a breach of the terms and conditions particularly of the G.R dated 19^th April 2010 as well as the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pandharpur dated 1^st September 2012. It is claimed that

¶19

Tilak

¶20

3/5 (3)WP-6064-16

¶21

various show cause notices were issued to the petitioner, and after giving opportunity, the impugned orders have been passed dated 12^th February 2013 and 12^th August 2013.

¶22

3 Mr.Pol says that the petitioner denied all these contentions for no details of the show cause notice, their date of issuance and date of receipt, the date of hearing and the order are not set out at all. In the circumstances, the averment in the petition that the principles of natural justice have been violated is deemed to have been admitted.

¶23

4 After hearing both sides and perusing the entire petition and the affidavit, we are of the firm view that the petitioners were not afforded complete opportunity of being heard in the sense they do not know what case they have to meet and what are the materials which would be utilized against them.

¶24

5 If such is the nature of the complaint, we direct that the petitioners be issued, if not already issued show cause notices in relation to the specific cattle camps organized by them.

¶25

Tilak

¶26

4/5 (3)WP-6064-16

¶27

6 They should also be informed about the

¶28

allegations and the documents relied upon. The copies of such documents be supplied to them.

¶29

7 An opportunity of personal hearing be granted after prior intimation of the date, time and venue of the hearing. After that, a reasoned order be passed and duly communicated to the petitioners.

¶30

8 Let this entire procedure be completed as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from today.

¶31

9 We clarify that we are not expressing any opinion on the rival contentions.

¶32

10 The petition is allowed in the above terms only because we do not find any satisfactory materials which would indicate compliance with the principles of natural justice.

¶33

Tilak

¶34

5/5 (3)WP-6064-16

¶35

11 Petition is therefore, disposed of in the above

¶36

terms with no order as to costs.

¶37

(SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE,J) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J)

¶38

Tilak

Shree Siddnath Milk Producers Society Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Land Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Siddnath Milk Producers Society Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Land Revenue and Forest Dept. 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

Liladhar v. Chogle Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Vishal Mathuraprasad Gupta Vs Collector of Thane and Ors.

Prakash Revachand Budhrani and Ors. Vs Vishal Mathuraprasad Gupta

Late Suryaji Bapuso Kashid (Decd) through Lrs Vs State of Maharashtra through Additional Chief Secretary and Ors.

Vijaykumar Shantaram Bhamare through Poa, Bhas Bhamare Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Late Suryaji Bapuso Kashid (Decd) through Lrs Vs State of Maharashtra through Additional Chief Secretary and Ors.