Disposed

Abhijit Kalidas Sawaikar., v. Shree Anant Devasthan, Thr. Its Attorney and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2019WP/95/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of six writ petitions questioning the non-disposal of appeals under the Devasthan Regulation. The Court directed the body of members to consider and decide the pending appeals within 60 days, permitting a personal hearing if desired, without insisting on the formal statutory procedure of forwarding appeals to the Administrator first.

What did the court decide?

All petitions disposed with direction to body of members to decide appeals within 60 days; personal hearing offered if desired.

Abhijit Kalidas Sawaikar., Vs Shree… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

mukund 1 wp-94 to 99 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NOS. 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 and 99 OF 2019

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 94 OF 2019

¶5

Mr. Eknath Sawaikar @ Ekanata Savoikar,
major of age, married,
retired, Indian national,
Plot no.34, Chaitanya
Sagar Co-operatives
Housing Society Ltd.
Taleigao, Panaji Goa.…Petitioner
 Versus
1.Shree Anant Devasthan,
a Devastan governed by
the Devastan Regulations,
(through its attorney)
having office at Savoi Verem,
Ponda, Goa.
2.The General Body (Body
of Members/Mahajans),
of Shree Anant Devasthan,
Savoi Verem, Ponda, Goa.

¶6

3.Administrator of Devalaya
& Malatdar, Ponda Taluka,
Government of Goa,
having his office at Ponda, Goa.….Respondents

¶7

mukund 2 wp-94 to 99 of 2019

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 95 OF 2019

¶9

Mr. Abhijit Kalidas Sawaikar,
Son of Kalidas Sawaikar
major of age, Indian national,
r/o House no.77,
Tamsuli, Khandola,
Marcel, Goa. 403 107.…Petitioner

¶10

 Versus

¶11

1.Shree Anant Devasthan,
a Devastan governed by
the Devastan Regulations,
(through its attorney)
having office at Savoi Verem,
Ponda, Goa.

¶12

2The General Body (Body
of Members/Mahajans),
of Shree Anant Devasthan,
Savoi Verem, Ponda, Goa.

¶13

3.Administrator of Devalaya
& Malatdar, Ponda Taluka,
Government of Goa,
having his office at Ponda, Goa.….Respondents

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 96 OF 2019

¶15

Mr. Pravin Prabhakar Nigalye,
Son of Prabhakar Sawaikar,
major of age,
Indian national,

¶16

mukund 3 wp-94 to 99 of 2019
House No.544,,
Savoiverem,
Ponda, Goa. 403 401.…Petitioner
 Versus
1.Shree Anant Devasthan,
a Devastan governed by
the Devastan Regulations,
(through its attorney)
having office at Savoi Verem,
Ponda, Goa.
2.The General Body (Body
of Members/Mahajans),
of Shree Anant Devasthan,
Savoi Verem, Ponda, Goa.
3.Administrator of Devalaya
& Malatdar, Ponda Taluka,
Government of Goa,
having his office at Ponda, Goa.….Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 97 OF 2019

¶17

Mr. Vijaykumar Sawaikar,
Son of Sadanand Sawaikar
major of age,
Indian national,
House no.586,
Savoiverem,
Ponda, Goa. 403 401.…Petitioner
 Versus

¶18

mukund 4 wp-94 to 99 of 2019
1.Shree Anant Devasthan,
a Devastan governed by
the Devastan Regulations,
(through its attorney)
having office at Savoi Verem,
Ponda, Goa.
2.The General Body (Body
of Members/Mahajans),
of Shree Anant Devasthan,
Savoi Verem, Ponda, Goa.
3.Administrator of Devalaya
& Malatdar, Ponda Taluka,
Government of Goa,
having his office at Ponda, Goa.….Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 98 OF 2019
Mr. Rajesh Gopal Chaphadkar,
Son of Gopal Chafadkar,
major of age, Indian national,
r/o House no.119,
Behind Goa Dairy,
Curti, Ponda Goa
403 401.…Petitioner
 Versus
1.Shree Anant Devasthan,
a Devastan governed by
the Devastan Regulations,

¶19

mukund 5 wp-94 to 99 of 2019
(through its attorney)
having office at Savoi Verem,
Ponda, Goa.

¶20

2.The General Body (Body
of Members/Mahajans),
of Shree Anant Devasthan,
Savoi Verem, Ponda, Goa.

¶21

3. Administrator of Devalaya & Malatdar, Ponda Taluka, Government of Goa, having his office at Ponda, Goa. …. Respondents

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO. 99 OF 2019

¶23

Mr. Ameya Subhash Shilkar,
Son of Subhash Shilkar
major of age,
Indian national,
House no.537,
Shilwada, Savoiverem,
Ponda, Goa. 403 401.…Petitioner
 Versus

¶24

1.Shree Anant Devasthan,
a Devastan governed by
the Devastan Regulations,
(through its attorney)
having office at Savoi Verem,
Ponda, Goa.

¶25

2. The General Body (Body

¶26

mukund 6 wp-94 to 99 of 2019
of Members/Mahajans),
of Shree Anant Devasthan,
Savoi Verem, Ponda, Goa.

¶27

3.Administrator of Devalaya
& Malatdar, Ponda Taluka,
Government of Goa,
having his office at Ponda, Goa.….Respondents

¶28

Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioners, in all the petitions.
Mr. Parag Wagle, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2, in all the
petitions.

¶29

Ms.Neha Kholkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent
No.3 in WP No.94/2019.

¶30

Mr.P.Dangui, Government Advocate for Respondent No.3 in WP
No.95/2019.

¶31

Mr. Arun A.S.Talaulikar, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.3 in WP No.96/2019.

¶32

Mr. V. Sardessai, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent
No.3 in WP No.97/2019.

¶33

Ms.Priyanka Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.3 in WP No.98/2019.

¶34

Mr.Sagar Dhargalkar, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No.3 in WP No.99/2019.

¶35

Coram : M.S. Sonak &

¶36

Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.

¶37

Date : 7^th February 2019.

¶38

Oral Judgment (Per M.S.Sonak, J) :

¶39

mukund 7 wp-94 to 99 of 2019

¶40

 Heard Mr. Ryan Menezes, learned counsel for the
petitioners in all these petitions, Ms. P. Kamat, Mr. Sagar Dhargalkar,
Mr.V.Sardessai, Mr. Arun Taulikar and Ms. Neha Kholkar, learned
Additional Government Advocates for respondent no.3 and Mr.
Dangui, Government Advocate for respondent no.3 in all these
petitions and Mr. Parag Wagle, learned counsel for respondent nos.1
and 2 in all these petitions.

¶41

2. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of and
at the request of learned counsel for the parties.

¶42

3. The only grievance raised by the petitioners in these
petitions is that they have instituted an appeal under Article 26 Para 2
of the Devasthan Regulation, questioning the deliberation dated
12.4.2018 before the body of members (mazania) of respondent
nos.1 and 2 and such appeals are not being disposed of.

¶43

4. Mr. Wagle, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2,
points out that under Article 250 of the Devasthan Regulation, the
appeal to the body of members (mazania) has to be first handed over
to the Administrator (Mamlatdar) respondent no.3 herein. Thereafter
the Administrator (Mamlatdar), by an order has to summon the body
of members (mazania) to meet in an extraordinary session, if required,

¶44

mukund 8 wp-94 to 99 of 2019

¶45

in order to consider such appeals. He points out that no such
procedure has been adopted by the petitioners in the present case and,
therefore, there was no obligation on the body of members (mazania)
to directly consider and dispose of such appeals. He points out that
there is also the time of limitation involved.

¶46

5. Mr. Ryan Menezes has handed in the memo of appeal,
which indicates that on 30.4.2018 copy of the appeal memo was
indeed served on the office of the Administrator (Mamlatdar).

¶47

6. Mr. Wagle is quite right in his submission based upon the
procedure. However, since the procedure is ultimately, only for the
purposes of supplementing the cause of justice, in this matter, rather
than insisting upon the formal convening of meeting of the body of
members (mazania) on the basis of the order of Administrator
(Mamlatdar), we put it to Mr. Wagle as to whether the body of
members can, in the peculiar facts of the case, consider the appeals
instituted by the petitioners and dispose of them in accordance with
law.

¶48

7. Mr. Wagle has very graciously accepted, the suggestion
which came from the Court and has stated that the appeals instituted
by the petitioners, will be disposed of, in accordance with law within

¶49

mukund 9 wp-94 to 99 of 2019

¶50

a period of 60 days from today by the body of members (mazania),
who will meet to decide these appeals. He, however, requests that all
the contentions of the parties be kept open to be decided by the body
of members (mazania). This request, in the circumstances of the
present case, is quite reasonable.

¶51

8. Mr. Wagle also states that the principles of natural justice
will be followed and accordingly, if the petitioners desire a personal
hearing, the same will be offered.

¶52

9. Mr. Ryan Menezes, learned counsel for the petitioners,
assures this Court that the petitioners will attend personal hearing, if
they so desire on the appointed date without seeking any
adjournment. This is necessary because the appeals are to be heard by
the body of members (mazania) and it will not be very easy for such
body to convene time and again. We accept the assurance given by Mr.
Ryan Menezes that no adjournment will be applied for, or in any case,
written submissions will be filed on the date of hearing of the appeals
in case any of the petitioners, for some unavoidable reason, cannot
remain present.

¶53

10. Mr. Wagle, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2
states that the body of members (mazania) will meet on 10th March

¶54

mukund 10 wp-94 to 99 of 2019

¶55

2019 at 11.00 a.m. to decide the appeals. Mr. Menezes takes note of
this date on behalf of the petitioners. Accordingly, there will be no
necessity for service of any fresh notices on the petitioners.

¶56

11. Accordingly, all these petitions are disposed of, with a
direction to the body of the members (mazania) to dispose of the
petitioners' appeals in accordance with law, within a period of 60 days
from today. All the contentions of the parties are left open to be
decided by the body of members (mazania).

¶57

12. Rule is made partly absolute in the aforesaid terms in
each of these petitions.

¶58

13.All concerned to act on the basis of an authenticated copy
of this order.

¶59

14.There shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J. M.S.Sonak, J.

Abhijit Kalidas Sawaikar., v. Shree Anant Devasthan, Thr. Its Attorney and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhijit Kalidas Sawaikar., v. Shree Anant Devasthan, Thr. Its Attorney and 2 Ors.

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

Emgee Properties, Thr. Its Partner, Mudhit Gupta, Thr. Poa Caetano Rony Fernandes and 2 Ors., Vs Central Bank of India, Panaji.

Alex v. a. D'Souza and 5 Ors., Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 13 Ors.

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Panaji-Goa., Vs Shivam Ispat (P) Ltd., Kundaim.

Pravin Prabhakar Nigalye., Vs Shree Anant Devasthan, Thr. Its Attorney and 2 Ors.

Vijaykumar Sawaikar., Vs Shree Anant Devasthan, Thr. Its Attorney and 2 Ors.

Rajesh Gopal Chaphadkar., Vs Shree Anant Devasthan, Thr. Its Attorney and 2 Ors.