Remanded

Shri. Haresh Nandlal Meherchandani and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra through Relief and Rehabilitation Dept. and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2019WP/13158/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's rehabilitation application due to lack of hearing. The Managing Officer was directed to reconsider the matter after providing an opportunity of hearing within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18th November, 2019 set aside; Managing Officer directed to reconsider the prayer after giving opportunity of hearing within eight weeks.

Shri. Haresh Nandlal Meherchandani and Anr… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

39 wpst 24600-19

Priya Soparkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.24600 OF 2019

¶6

Shri Haresh N. Meherchandnani and anr.… Petitioners V/s.

¶7

State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents

¶8

Ms.Minal J. Chandnani, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.L.Babar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State.

¶9

CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN, J. DATE : DECEMBER 11, 2019.

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

Heard Ms.Minal J. Chandnani, learned counsel for the

¶12

petitioners; and Mr.S.L.Babar, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶13

By filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek quashing of order dated 18^th November, 2019 passed by respondent No.2.

¶14

By order dated 18^th November, 2019, application of the petitioners dated 11^th March, 2019 for rehabilitation as displaced persons was rejected on the ground that the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)

¶15

Priya Soparkar 2 39 wpst 24600-19

¶16

Act, 1954 was repealed by the Displaced Persons claims and other Laws Repeal Act, 2005. Since the application was filed after repealment, therefore, the same was rejected by taking the view that only those cases upto the date when the Act was repealed can be taken into consideration.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical matters this court had set aside such order while remanding the matter back for reconsideration on the ground that rejection of the application for rehabilitation was without hearing the applicant and thereby in violation of the principles of natural justice. In this connection, learned counsel has placed before the court a copy of order dated 16^th October, 2019 passed by this court in Writ Petition No.8381 of 2019, Ekta Bhagwan Rajai Vs. Managing-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Ulhasnagar Sub-Division.

¶18

On a query by the court she submits that petitioner has been making such claim to rehabilitation since long back, much prior to the date of repeal and the

¶19

Priya Soparkar 3 39 wpst 24600-19

¶20

application dated 11^th March, 2019 was only the last of the applications.

¶21

Mr.N.C.Walimbe, learned AGP submits that whether petitioner had submitted applications prior to the repealed date would have to be gone into by the authority.

¶22

Submissions made have been considered.

¶23

This court in Ekta Bhagwan Rajai (supra) took note of the grievance of the said batch of petitioners while allowing the writ petitions in the following terms:-

¶24

“4. By the said applications, petitioners had sought for their rehabilitation under the Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954. On the ground that the said Act was repealed by the Displaced Persons and other Laws Repeal Act, 2005, the said applications were rejected. In the rejection orders reference was made to a letter dated 17^th September, 2014 of the Government of India in the Revenue and Forest Departments, wherein it was clarified that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 would be applicable to the Displaced Persons and other Laws Repeal Act, 2005.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that had the petitioners been given an opportunity, petitioners would have satisfied the authority that they had been persistently pursuing the matter since a long time. Applications dated 11^th January, 2019 were only the last of the applications, which were in continuation of the earlier applications. He, therefore, submits that

39 wpst 24600-19

Priya Soparkar

impugned order dated 11^th January, 2019 is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, should be set aside by directing the Managing Officer to reconsider the matter after hearing the petitioners. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 21^st August, 2019 passed in Writ Petition No.2203 of 2019 (Jaiprakash Hiranand Kalyani and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.) and submits that in that case also matter was remanded to the Managing Officer for reconsideration after hearing the petitioners.

¶30

Considering the above, impugned order dated 11^th January, 2019 is hereby set aside. Respondent No. 1 i.e. Managing Officer-cumSub-divisional Officer, Ulhasnagar is directed to re-consider the prayer of the petitioners after giving them an opportunity of hearing and thereafter, to take a decision one way or the other within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of an authenticated copy of this order.”

¶31

In the light of the above, impugned order dated 18^th November, 2019 is set aside, Managing Officer cum Sub-Divisional Officer, Ulhasnagar is directed to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner after giving him an opportunity of hearing and thereafter, to take a decision one way or the other in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt

¶32