Allowed

Navinchandra Ramakant Catcar and 2 Ors., v. State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 14 Ors.

Bombay HC27 Sept 2021WP/4/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged the order of the Goa Commission for Scheduled Caste. The Commission had declared the matter civil and lacked jurisdiction but then issued a direction restraining eviction pending court disposal. The High Court allowed the petition and set aside that direction.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; impugned order set aside to the extent of the direction given regarding non-eviction.

Navinchandra Ramakant Catcar and 2 Ors., Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

12 WP-4-2020.DOC

¶2

Meena

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4 OF 2020

¶5

NAVINCHANDRA RAMAKANT …Petitioners CATCAR AND 2 ORS.

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GOA, THR. CHIEF …Respondents SECRETARY AND 14 ORS.,

¶8

Mr. E. Dias, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. V. Sardessai , Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.

¶10

Mr. Guru Shirodkar and Ms. Varsha Parab , Advocates for the respondent Nos. 3 to 15.

¶11

CORAM: MANISH PITALE, J. DATED: 27^th September, 2021.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1. By this Writ Petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23/09/2019 passed by the respondent No.2- Goa Commission for Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe. It is the contention of the petitioners that the direction given under the said order to the effect that the petitioners should not evict or dispossess the respondent Nos.3 to 15 and their family members from the property in question till disposal of the matter pending before the appropriate Court of law, was completely without jurisdiction. It was submitted that the respondent No.2Commission had no power or authority to give such a direction.

¶14

Page 1 of 3 27th September, 2021

¶15

12 WP-4-2020.DOC

¶16

2. While issuing notice on 06/11/2020, this Court observed that once a quasi-judicial forum like the respondent No.2 – Commission herein itself ruled that it had no jurisdiction, such direction could not have been passed. In fact, this Court gave a prima facie observation that the Civil Court or any other judicial fora where the disputes between the parties are pending, will proceed with the matters uninfluenced by the impugned order.

¶17

3. This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties. It is clear from the impugned order itself that in the paragraph earlier to the operative portion of the order the respondent No.2 – Commission itself has observed as follows:

¶18

“Therefore after thoroughly examining the complaint
and also after hearing the views of all the parties and
their concern Advocates, I am in opinion that the
present matter is in Civil nature and to act on such
matter the Commission has no Jurisdiction. Therefore
following order is passed.”

¶19

4. Thereafter, surprisingly the respondent No.2–Commission passed the operative portion of the order which reads as follows:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Complaint dated 29th august 2018 filed Shri. Vaval
Pandhari Gaonkar and others Ponda Goa is hereby
stand disposed off and the same is accepted by the
Complainants and the Respondents.

¶22

Hence, this Commission recommend the
Respondents that they should not evict/dispossess the

¶23

Page 2 of 3 27th September, 2021

¶24

12 WP-4-2020.DOC

¶25

Complainants and their family members from the
property known as ‘Gali’ surveyed under survey
no.11/1 Village Usgao, Taluka Ponda Goa, till the
disposal of the matter ending before the appropriate
court of law.

¶26

On 23rd of September 2019 Order is passed.”

¶27

5. It is clear from the above quoted portion of the impugned order that the order itself is self-contradictory, for the reason that once the respondent No.2 – Commission had come to a considered conclusion that it did not have jurisdiction in the matter, there was no propriety in giving the specific direction in the operative portion of the order quoted above.

¶28

6. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside to the extent of the direction given in the operative portion of the order.

¶29

7. Needless to say, the dispute between the parties is now said to be pending before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, which shall proceed without being influenced by the order passed by this Court.

¶30

MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Digitally signed by MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Date: 2021.09.28 17:31:33 +05'30'

¶31

MANISH PITALE, J.

¶32

Page 3 of 3 27th September, 2021

Navinchandra Ramakant Catcar and 2 Ors., v. State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 14 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navinchandra Ramakant Catcar and 2 Ors., v. State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 14 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Goa, Thr. Officer Incharge, Old Goa Police Station, Old Goa., Vs Ajit Bakal.

Francy Agnelo Gonsalves Vs State, Thr. the Police Inspector, Crime Branch, Ribandar and Anr.

V. G. Quenim, a Prop. Concern, of Prasad Keni and 9 Ors. Vs Bandekar Bros. Pvt. Ltd., and 2 Ors.

Amey Dilip Sardessai Vs Gayatri Amey Sardessai

Anant v. Lotlikar., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Shaikh Nazir., Vs Parvimbi Shaikh.