Allowed

Kishor Prabhakar Mahajan and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Dec 2018WP/6463/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed communications discontinuing the petitioners' appointments. Ruling that rights crystalized under the 2010 MoU between the town authorities and the power generation company take precedence over a subsequent 2011 Government Resolution limiting nominee eligibility.

What did the court decide?

Communications dated 6th October, 2012 and 13th April, 2016 were quashed. Respondents directed to treat petitioners as valid nominees and proceed per the MoU within eight weeks.

Kishor Prabhakar Mahajan and Another Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.6463 OF 2016

¶3

1. Kishor s/o Prabhakar Mahajan, Age : Major, Occu. Nil, R/o at post Fulgaon, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon

¶4

2. Bhushan s/o Dhanraj Choudhari, Age : Major, Occu. Nil, R/o at post Fulgaon, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon PETITIONERS VERSUS

¶5

1. The State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶6

2. The Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., through its Managing Director, Prakashgad, IInd Floor, Bandra (East), Mumbai

¶7

3. The General Manager (Human resources), The Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., Mumbai

¶8

4. The General Manager (Establishment Civil Construction Division No.I, The Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., Deepnagar, Bhusawal, District Jalgaon

¶9

¶10

wp6463-2016

¶11

5. The Chief Engineer (O&M), Bhusawal Thermal Power Station, Deepnagar, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon RESPONDENTS

¶12

Mr. U.R. Awate, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.B.
Talekar, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. K.S. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondent/State
Mr. Satish M. Godsay, Advocate for respondent
Nos.2 and 3

¶13

CORAM :S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
DATE :4th DECEMBER, 2018

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) :

¶15

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

¶16

the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and
the learned A.G.P., taken up for final hearing.

¶17

2.Mr. Awate, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners are the nominees of the

¶18

persons, whose land has been acquired by respondent
Nos.2 to 5. The petitioners were also issued appointment

¶19

orders and one year thereafter, the petitioners are

¶20

discontinued. The learned counsel submits that the

¶21

reason given for discontinuation, in the communication

¶22

dated 6th October, 2012, is the closure of the project.
Under communication dated 13th April, 2016, issued by the

¶23

¶24

wp6463-2016

¶25

General Manager – respondent No. 3, it is stated that
nomination could not have been given in favour of the
petitioners as they are the sons of sisters of the
persons, whose land has been acquired and could not have
been the nominees, as per Govt. Resolution dated 11th
May, 2011. The learned counsel submits that the
petitioners' land was acquired in the year 2009. The
appointments were given to the petitioners pursuant to
the Memorandum of Understanding (“M.O.U.”, for short)
dated 3rd June, 2010. There are other persons similarly
situated, who have been given appointment and continued

¶26

in service. The action of the respondents to
discontinue the petitioners is required to be quashed
and set aside.

¶27

3.Mr. Godsay, learned counsel for respondent

¶28

Nos.2 and 3 submits that the petitioners have been given
appointment as nominees of the persons, whose land has

¶29

been acquired. However, it has been noticed that the
petitioners do not come within the ambit of the
definition of “family”. The respondent being a
Government company is bound by the Government policy.
The family of the project affected person would include

¶30

the person himself, husband, wife, son, unmarried

¶31

wp6463-2016

¶32

¶33

daughter, brother, sister and daughter-in-law. The
appointment of the petitioners is not permissible as per
the Government policy enshrined in the Govt. Resolution
dated 11th May, 2011. The illustration given by the
petitioners, appointed as trainees, is in respect of
those persons who have been appointed prior to the said
policy.

¶34

4.It is not disputed by respondent Nos.2 to 5

¶35

that the petitioners are the nominees of the persons,
whose land has been acquired. The petitioners were also
given appointment as trainees as per the Scheme under
the M.O.U. dated 3rd June, 2010. The Scheme does not
restrict the definition of a nominee. It only states
that nominee of the person, whose land is acquired,
would be considered. The Govt. Resolution relied by
the respondents dated 11th May, 2011 is subsequent to the
date of M.O.U. The rights are crystalized in favour of
the parties pursuant to the M.O.U. dated 3rd June, 2010.
Any subsequent Govt. Resolution may not affect the
rights crystalized in favour of the person under the
M.O.U. dated 3rd June, 2010. The parties have also acted
upon the said M.O.U.

¶36

5 wp6463-2016

¶37

5.As observed above, the parties would be

¶38

governed by the M.O.U. dated 3rd June, 2010. The said
M.O.U. has also been accepted, implemented and acted
upon by the parties as the petitioners were given
appointment as trainees pursuant to the said M.O.U.

¶39

6.In light of above, the communications dated 6th
October, 2012 and 13th April, 2016, refusing to treat the

¶40

persons as project affected persons/nominees of the
project affected persons, are quashed and set aside.
Respondent Nos.2 to 5 shall treat the petitioners as
valid nominees of the project affected persons and
proceed further as per the Memorandum of Understanding
dated 3rd June, 2010. The respondents shall take further
steps expeditiously and preferably within eight weeks.
The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed
of. Rule made absolute. No costs.

¶41

[R.G. AVACHAT] [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶42

npj/wp6463-2016

Kishor Prabhakar Mahajan and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor Prabhakar Mahajan and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Dayaldas Fulwani Vs Chairman and Managing Director and Others of M.S.E.T.Co. Ltd.

Atmaram Babulal Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok Bajirao Aher Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Aurangabad Vs Gangapur Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors.

Shriniwas Prabhakar Karve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shakilkhan Badruddin Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others