Allowed

Parushuram Narayan Shinde through Attorney Reena Wadhwa v. Sub Divisional Officer Ulhasnagar and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Dec 2019WP/223/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside writ petitions where rehabilitation applications were rejected under the Displaced Persons Act, 1954, citing the Act's repeal. The order was invalidated because the Respondent failed to hear the petitioners about prior applications before rejecting them.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; Respondent directed to reconsiderPetitioners' prayer after a hearing within eight weeks.

Parushuram Narayan Shinde through Attorney Reena… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

VPH

¶2

28 - 32 WPST. 30562, 30570, 30772, 30780, 30785 - 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION (St.) No. 30562 OF 2019

¶5

Parshuram Narayan Shinde … Petitioner Vs. Sub Divisional Offer, offe of the Administrator, Ulhasnagar & Anr. … Respondents AND

¶6

WRIT PETITION (St.) No. 30570 OF 2019

¶7

Sharad N. Joshi … Petitioner Vs. Sub Divisional Offer, offe of the Administrator, Ulhasnagar & Anr. … Respondents AND WRIT PETITION (St.) No. 30772 OF 2019 Mukesh Kukreja … Petitioner Vs. Sub Divisional Offer, offe of the Administrator, Ulhasnagar & Anr. … Respondents AND WRIT PETITION (St.) No. 30780 OF 2019 Hari Wadhwa … Petitioner Vs. Sub Divisional Offer, offe of the Administrator, Ulhasnagar & Anr. … Respondents

¶8

1 / 5

¶9

28 - 32 WPST. 30562, 30570, 30772, 30780, 30785 - 2019

¶10

AND

¶11

WRIT PETITION (St.) No. 30785 OF 2019

¶12

Hermani Jiwanshing Ofhani Vs. Sub Divisional Offer, offe of the Administrator, Ulhasnagar & Anr.

… Petitioner

… Respondents

Ms. Minal J. Chandwani, for the Petitioner in all petitions. Mr. N. C. Walimbe, AGP. For the Respondents in WPST. 30780/2019.

¶17

Mrs. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the Respondents in WPST. 30562/2019.

¶18

Mr. S. L. Babar, AGP for the Respondents in WPST. 30570/2019.

¶19

Mr. Nelson Rajan, AGP for the Respondents in WPST. 30772/2019.

¶20

Mr. A. B. Kadam, AGP for the Respondents in WPST. 30785/2019.

¶21

¶22

CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN DATE : DECEMBER 16, 2019

¶23

PC :

¶24

This order will dispose of Writ Petition (St.) Nos. 30562/2019, 30570/2019, 30772/2019, 30780/2019 and 30785/2019.

¶25

Heard learned founsel Ms. Minal Chandwani for the Petitioners in all the petitions and the learned AGP for respondents.

¶26

2 / 5

¶27

28 - 32 WPST. 30562, 30570, 30772, 30780, 30785 - 2019

¶28

Petitioners are aggrieved by various orders passed by the Managing Offer-fum-Sub-Divisional Offer, Ulhasnagar, rejefting their applifations for rehabilitation on the ground that the applifations were refeived after the fut-of date i.e. after the Displafed Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Aft, 1954 was repealed by the Displafed Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Aft, 2005.

¶29

Details of the rejeftion order in eafh writ petition are as under:

¶30

W	rit Petition (St.)	Date of rejeftion
	No.	order
(i)	30562/2019	14.11.2019
(ii)	30570/2019	14.11.2019
(iii)	30772/2019	14.11.2019
(iv)	30780/2019	14.11.2019
(v)	30785/2019	30.11.2019

¶31

By the respeftive applifations, Petitioners had sought for their rehabilitation under the Displafed Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Aft, 1954. On the ground that the said Aft was repealed by the Displafed Persons Claims and Other Laws Repeal Aft, 2005, and that the applifations of the Petitioners were made after the date of repealment, their applifations were rejefted. In

¶32

3 / 5

¶33

28 - 32 WPST. 30562, 30570, 30772, 30780, 30785 - 2019

¶34

the rejeftion order, referenfe was made to a letter dated 17.9.2014 of the Government of India in the Revenue & Forest Department, wherein it was flarifed that Seftion 6 of the General Clauses Aft of 1897 would be applifable to the repealed Aft.

¶35

Learned founsel appearing for the Petitioner in all the writ petitions submits that while rejefting the applifations of the Petitioners on the above ground, no opportunity of hearing was granted to them. Had the Petitioners been given an opportunity, they would have satisfed the authority that they had been persistently pursuing the matter sinfe long time, mufh before the repeal Aft was enafted. The rejefted applifations were in fontinuation of earlier applifations fled sinfe long before repealment. Thus, there was violation of the prinfiples of natural justife vitiating the rejeftion orders.

¶36

6.1. In this fonneftion, learned founsel for the Petitioners has plafed relianfe on an order dated 16.10.2019 passed by this Court in a group of petitions, the lead petition being Writ Petition No. 8381/2019 in the fase of Smt. Ekta Bhagwan Rajai Vs. Managingcum-Sub-Divisional Ofcer, Ulhasnagar Sub-Division and prays for a similar order

¶37

Learned AGP, however, supports the impugned

¶38

4 / 5

¶39

28 - 32 WPST. 30562, 30570, 30772, 30780, 30785 - 2019

¶40

orders passed by the Managing-fum-Sub-Divisional Offer, Ulhasnagar Sub-Division.

¶41

After hearing learned founsel appearing for the respeftive parties and on due fonsideration, Court is of the view that before rejefting the applifations of the Petitioners, they ought to have been heard as to whether they had submitted previous applifation prior to the repeal of the parent Aft, viz. Displafed Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Aft, 1954. That having not been done, the orders impugned in all the writ petitions fannot be sustained.

¶42

Affordingly, these orders are hereby set aside.

¶43

Respondent No. 1 Managing Offer-fum-SubDivisional Offer, Ulhasnagar Sub-Division is direfted to refonsider the prayer of the Petitioners, after giving them an opportunity of hearing, and thereafter to take a defision one way or the other, in affordanfe with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of refeipt of an authentifated fopy of this order.

¶44

All writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶45

Sd/- [UJJAL BHUYAN, J.]

¶46

Vinayak Halemath

¶47

5 / 5

Parushuram Narayan Shinde through Attorney Reena Wadhwa v. Sub Divisional Officer Ulhasnagar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parushuram Narayan Shinde through Attorney Reena Wadhwa v. Sub Divisional Officer Ulhasnagar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited through Its Addl. Executive Engineer Vs Shri Mohammad Sajid Haji Sardar

Rupee Co-Op.Bank Ltd. Vs Super Beads Machinery Pvt.Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Jalinder Ramu Kale and Ors. Vs Shri. Baba Yashwant Borate

Shri. Malaidevi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Vs Shro. Sahankar Mahadeo Surve and Anr.

Shri Dadaji Shankar Patil and Ors. Vs the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Deptt. and Ors.

Sharad Nahar Joshi through Attorney Reena Wadhwa Vs Sub Divisional Officer Ulhasnagar and Anr.