Allowed

Prasanna Nagvekar v. Advino Fernandes and 9 Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jul 2021WP/7/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an order dated 18.12.2020 by the competent authority (Chief Secretary) for failing to record reasons after hearing the petitioner. The authority was directed to hear all parties again and make a speaking order within the timeline prescribed by the Goa Lokayukta Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.12.2020 set aside. Competent authority directed to hear parties and pass a speaking order with reasons by a specified date.

Prasanna Nagvekar Vs Advino Fernandes… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 909 WP 7 of 2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.7 OF 2021

¶4

Prasanna Nagvekar,
Major in age, 45 years,
R/o H.No. B/169/1,
Reis Magos,
Bardez-Goa.... Petitioner.
 Versus
1. Advino Fernandes,
R/o H. No. S-92, 47 year
Near Hanuman Temple,
Sonarbhat,
Reis Magos,
Bardez-Goa.

¶5

2. Sachin Satardekar,
R/o H. No. A/168, 50 year
Near Saraswati Temple,
Reis Magos, Verem,
Bardez-Goa.

¶6

3. Rajesh Dabholkar,
R/o H. No. A/70, 52 year
Near Shantadurga Temple,
Reis Magos,
Bardez-Goa.

¶7

4. Virendra Shirodkar,
Son of Gurudas Shirodkar,
Aged 47 years,
R/o H.No S 68
Sonarbhat,
Verem Reis Magos,
Bardez-Goa.

¶8

2 909 WP 7 of 2021.doc

¶9

5. Pundalik Khorjuvenkar
Major of age, 48 years
Presently working as
Deputy Director of Tribal Welfare,
Shramshkti Bhavan, Patto,
Panaji-Goa.

¶10

6. Premanand Mandrekar
Major of age, 42 year
Presently working as
Secretary Village panchayat
Reis Magos,
Bardez-Goa.

¶11

7. Dr Benoy Berry,
Major in age, 53 year,
r/o Hotel Dolphin Bay,
Kegdevelim,
Reis Magos,
Bardez-Goa.

¶12

8. M/s Spark Healthline Pvt. Ltd,
Through its managing director,
Having office at B-4,
Hauz Khas, South Delhi,
Delhi-110016.

¶13

9. The State Government of Goa,
Through its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat,
Porvorim, Goa.

¶14

10. Secretary
(Panchayat Department)
Government of Goa,
Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa.

¶15

3 909 WP 7 of 2021.doc

¶16

11. Police Inspector,
Anti Corruption Branch,
Altinho, Panaji, Goa.

¶17

... Respondents.

¶18

Mr. S.S. Kantak, Senior Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶19

Ms. Maria Correia, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents
No. 9 and 10

¶20

Mr. Hanumant D. Naik, Advocate for Respondents No.1, 2 and 3.

¶21

Coram:M.S. SONAK, J.
Date: 14th July 2021.

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶23

Heard Mr. S.S. Kantak, learned Senior Advocate who appears with
Mr. Talaulikar for the Petitioner, Mr. Hanumant Naik appears for
Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 (Original Complainants before the Hon'ble
Lokayukta).

¶24

2.Having regard to the issues raised in this petition, Rule is granted
and further, the rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of and
with the consent of the learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents.

¶25

3.Mr. Kantak, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Petitioner points out that presently, he is restricting his challenge to the
order dated 18.12.2020 made by the competent authority (Chief
Secretary) accepting and proposing action in terms of the
recommendation of the Lokayukta made in Proceeding No.26/2019 on
14.09.2020.

¶26

4 909 WP 7 of 2021.doc

¶27

4.Mr. Kantak submits that though the Petitioner was heard by the
competent authority, the impugned order dated 18.12.2020 neither
reflects any consideration of the contentions urged by and on behalf of
the Petitioner nor does the impugned order contain any reasons
whatsoever. He submits that for these reasons, the impugned order dated
18.12.2020 is liable to be set aside.

¶28

5.Mr. Hanumant Naik submits that though it may be true that there
are no reasons in the order dated 18.12.2020, since, this is a case of the
competent authority merely agreeing with the recommendation of the
Lokayukta, the impugned order may not be interfered with.

¶29

6.In the peculiar facts of the present case, I feel that at least some
reasons were necessary that would reflect the consideration of the
contentions raised by and on behalf of the Petitioner. Since there are no
reasons whatsoever, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, without
going into the larger question of whether in any such type of matters,
there is invariably an obligation to either hear the parties or to make
detailed reasoned orders. Such larger issue is expressly kept open and can
be gone into in an appropriate case.

¶30

7.Having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the present case,
therefore, the impugned order dated 18.12.2020 made by the competent
authority is hereby set aside and the competent authority is hereby
directed to once again hear both the Petitioner as well as the Original

¶31

5 909 WP 7 of 2021.doc

¶32

Complainants i.e. Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and take a decision on the
further course of action in accordance with law. The competent authority
to make and communicate a speaking order with brief reasons on this
occasion.

¶33

8.In case, any parties are aggrieved by the decision of the competent
authority, they will have the liberty to take out appropriate proceedings
and raise all permissible contentions, including the contention that the
Hon'ble Lokayukta should not have made the report or the
recommendation dated 14.09.2020. Such contentions will then be
examined on their own merits.

¶34

9.The parties to appear before the competent authority on
05.08.2021 at 3:00 p.m. and file authenticated copy of this order.

¶35

10.On the aforesaid date, the competent authority or his Secretariat
will indicate the convenient date when the parties could be heard. The
competent authority to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible,
partly since a timeline is provided for such matters under the Goa
Lokayukta Act, 2011.

¶36

11.The rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no
order as to costs.

¶37

12.All concerned to act based on authenticated copy of this order.

¶38

 M.S. SONAK, J.

¶39

jfd/-

Prasanna Nagvekar v. Advino Fernandes and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanna Nagvekar v. Advino Fernandes and 9 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

Spark Healthline Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Duly Aut. Sign., Jyoti Badoni Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 9 Ors.

Sakshi Krishnanath Gosavi., Vs Krishna Marutinath Gosavi.

Wonedulfo Antonio Da Costa Vs Felvira Irene Godinho and 3 Ors.

Diogo Luiz Jose Sebastiao Francisco Xavier Dessai Colaco De Fonseca and 3 Ors., Vs Punaji Pandurang Achrekar (Dec) Rep. by His Lrs. and Anr.

Prabhu Constructions, Rep. by Its Prop., Venkatesh Narayan Prabhu Moni Vs Jitesh Jivaji Kamat and 4 Ors.

Kayji Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Aut. Officer, Chandrakumar R. Huilgol., Vs Vishwanath Raghuvir Caroikar @ Vishwanath Raghuvir Karekar and 3 Ors.