Allowed

Maya Vijay Kapadane v. Sub Divisional Officer Office of Administrator and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Feb 2020WP/2922/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the writ petition challenging a refusal by an authority to entertain an application under the Displaced Persons Act. The refusal was based on the repeal of the Act, and the authority argued the petitioner missed the cutoff date and had an alternate remedy. The court held that since the order was passed without hearing the petitioner, it violated natural justice, regardless of th

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; application remitted to the first Respondent to be decided afresh after hearing the Petitioner within six weeks.

Maya Vijay Kapadane Vs Sub Divisional… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

19.5 - WPST. 1516-2020

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION (St.) No. 1516 OF 2020

¶5

Smt. Maya Vijay Kapadane … Petitioner Vs.

¶6

Sub-Divisional Officer, Office of the Administrator, Ulhasnagar & Anr. … Respondents ***

¶7

Ms. Minal J. Chandnani, for the Petitioner. Mr. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the Respondents.

¶8

¶9

CORAM : C. V. BHADANG, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 11, 2020

¶10

PC :

¶11

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned AGP waives notice on behalf of the Respondents. Heard finally, by consent of parties.

¶12

The challenge in this petition is to the communication / order dated 6^th January, 2020 passed by the Administrator cum SubDivisional Officer, Ulhasnagar. By the impugned communication, the Respondent has refused to entertain the application, inter alia, on the ground that the same is received after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.

¶13

The only contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that the said order has been passed without hearing him. The learned

¶14

1 / 3

¶15

19.5 - WPST. 1516-2020

¶16

counsel for the Petitioner points out that had the Petitioner been heard, he would have been in a position to point out to the authority about the powers to entertain the application filed by the Petitioner under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.

¶17

The learned AGP has pointed that all that impugned communication directs the Petitioner is to approach the competent authority. On behalf of the Respondents, reliance is placed on a notification dated 27^th November, 2017, which is under S. 6(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. He also submits that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy of an appeal under S. 22 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, which the Petitioner has not availed of. The learned AGP, on instructions, submits that the application is filed prior to the cut off date i.e. 5^th September, 2005.

¶18

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that in a group of similar petitions, being Writ Petition No. 8381 of 2019, this Court (Coram : Ujjal Bhuyan, J.) by judgment and order dated 16^th October, 2019 and others, has remitted the matters back for deciding the application afresh after hearing the Petitioner/s. Normally, availability of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar, particularly when it is found that the impugned order is passed without hearing the

¶19

2 / 3

¶20

19.5 - WPST. 1516-2020

¶21

party concerned, which is in breach of principles of natural justice. In view of the fact that in similar matters, this Court (Coram : Ujjal Bhuyan, J.) has found it fit to remit the matters back, I do not find that it would be appropriate to take a different view. Needless to mention that it will be open to the first Respondent to pass an appropriate order on its own merits, and in accordance with law, after hearing the Petitioner. In the result, following order is passed.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶24

(ii) The impugned order is hereby set aside.

¶25

(iii) The application filed by the Petitioner is remitted back to the first Respondent for deciding it afresh after hearing the Petitioner, on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt hereof.

¶26

(iv) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.

¶27

Digitally signed Vinayak by Vinayak P.Halemath Sd/P. Date: C. V. BHADANG, J. Halemath 2020.02.17 17:23:20 +0530

¶28

3 / 3

Maya Vijay Kapadane v. Sub Divisional Officer Office of Administrator and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya Vijay Kapadane v. Sub Divisional Officer Office of Administrator 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

Shri. Shivaji Pandurang Chumble Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Damu Mavaji Mukadam and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Revenue Minister and Ors.

Shri. Pravin Ramchandra Patil and Ors. Vs Shri. Amruddin Gulam Pathan and Ors.

Nandita Samir Bharadwaj Vs Samir Vidyasagar Bharadwaj

Sindhu Education Society Thru President Vs Sub Divisional Officer, Office of the Administrator , Ulhasnagar and Anr.

Mahesh Parsram Tolani Vs Sub Divisional Officer and Anr.