Disposed

Mahesh S. Raikar v. the Administrator of Devalayas and the Mamlatdar of Ponda and 9 Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jun 2021WP/221/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Goa disposed of a writ petition regarding Devalaya administration disputes by granting liberty to the petitioner to institute appeals before the Administrative Tribunal within 10 days, without adjudicating merits or declaring limitation issues.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file appeals before the Administrative Tribunal within 10 days; respondents directed to dispose pending appeals within 30 days.

Mahesh S. Raikar Vs the Administrator of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 38-wp-221-2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No. 221 OF 2021

¶4

Mahesh S. Raikar

¶5

...... Petitioner

¶6

V e r s u s

¶7

The Administrator of Devalayas And
The Mamlatdar of Ponda and 9 Ors

¶8

 .....Respondents

¶9

Mr. Sudesh Walwaikar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Shivdatt P. Munj, Additional Government Advocate for the
Respondents No.1 and 2.

¶11

Mr. Vivek Dandekar, Advocate for the Respondents No. 3 to 10.

¶12

 CORAM: M. S. SONAK, J

¶13

 DATE :15th June, 2021

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Heard Mr. Sudesh Walwaikar, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Vivek Dandekar, learned Counsel for the Respondents
No. 3 to 10. Mr. Shivdatt P. Munj, Additional Government Advocate
appears for the Respondents No.1 and 2.

¶16

2.Mr. Dandekar, learned Counsel for the respondents No.3 to 10
has raised a preliminary objection by pointing out that the petitioner has
alternate and efficacious remedy of instituting the appeal before the

¶17

2 38-wp-221-2021

¶18

Administrative Tribunal against the impugned order dated 18.02.2021
which is marked as Exhibit 'A'(page 22 of the paperbook).

¶19

3. Article 248 of the Devasthan Regulation reads as follows:

¶20

'248.-Against all the deliberations of the Managing Committee
it shall be allowed to appeal to the body of members (mazania);
against the latter's resolution, to the Administrator; and against
the latter's orders, to the Administrative, Fiscal and Audit
Tribunal, except the special cases prescribed under this
regulation.'

¶21

4.From the aforesaid, it does appear that as against the impugned
order made by the Administrator (Mamlatdar), the appeal lies before the
Administrative Tribunal.

¶22

5.Mr. Walwaikar, learned Counsel states that the petitioner will
institute such appeal within a period of 10 days from today. Mr. Dandekar,
learned Counsel for the respondents No.3 to 10-the contesting respondents,
submits that if such appeal is instituted within 10 days from today, then, the
contesting respondents will not raise the issue of limitation involved in the
filing of such appeal before the Administrative Tribunal. He clarifies that
the contesting respondents will however urge that the appeal before the
Administrator(Mamlatdar) instituted by the petitioner was barred by
limitation and, therefore, there is no error in the impugned order dated
18.02.2021 made by the Administrator (Mamlatdar).

¶23

3 38-wp-221-2021

¶24

6.Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to institute appeal before the Administrative Tribunal to question
the impugned order dated 18.02.2021. If such appeal is instituted within
10 days from today, then, the Administrative Tribunal, will decide this
appeal, without raising the bar of limitation to the institution of such
appeal.

¶25

7.Mr. Walwaikar, learned Counsel points out that the petitioner
had instituted 2 civil appeals, which are to be found at pages 87 and 91 of
this paperbook. He submits that such appeals have not been disposed of by
the Administrator (Mamlatdar) till date or, in the alternative, such appeals
have been disposed of by the impugned order itself without even adverting
to the memo of appeal and the grievances therein.

¶26

8.If the appeals at pages 87 and 91 of the paperbook have not yet
been disposed of by the Administrator (Mamlatdar), it is open to the
petitioner to point this fact to the Administrator (Mamlatdar) and there is
no doubt that the Administrator (Mamlatdar) will dispose of such appeals
and communicate the order to the petitioner. However, if the
Administrator(Mamldar) is of the opinion that even these appeals have been
disposed of by the impugned order dated 18.02.2021, then, the petitioner,
will be entitled to file 2 additional appeals before the Administrative
Tribunal within 10 days from the date of such communication by the

¶27

4 38-wp-221-2021

¶28

Administrator (Mamlatdar). The Administrator (Mamlatdar) to therefore
make appropriate orders on the appeals at pages 87 and 91 of this
paperbook as expeditiously as possible and in any case within the period of
30 days from the date of filing of authenticated copy of this order.

¶29

9.In case the appeals are instituted by the petitioner within the
time limit indicated in this order, then, the Administrative Tribunal to
dispose of such appeals as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a
period of 4 months from the date of effective service of notice upon the
contesting parties.

¶30

10.For the aforesaid limited purpose, the parties/their advocates to
appear before the Administrator (Mamlatdar) on 21.06.2021 at 03:00PM
and file authenticated copy of this order.

¶31

11.This petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, without
going into the rival contentions on merits.

¶32

12. All concerned to act on the basis of authenticated copy of this

¶33

order.

¶34

M. S. SONAK, J.

¶35

msr.

Mahesh S. Raikar v. the Administrator of Devalayas and the Mamlatdar of Ponda and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh S. Raikar v. the Administrator of Devalayas and the Mamlatdar of Ponda and 9 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

Shri. Sudhir Janardhan Desai Vs Royal Inks Private Limited

Namdeo Vishnu Salgaonkar Alias Joao Augusto Cardozo (Since Dec) through Lr'S Vs Subhash B. Velingkar and Anr.

Rohidas Simepuruskar (Since Dec.) through Lr'S a) Smt. Rekshita Rayu Simepuruskar and Ors., Vs Mario Francisco De Conceicao Lobo Alias Mario Francisco Lobo

Amol Sawant., Vs the Public Information Officer.

Amelino Clifton De Rosario Azavedo and Anr., Vs Newton Azavedo and 3 Ors.

Mazania of Shree Krishna Ravalnath Devasthan, Thr. Its President, Premanand P. Phadte (Nageshkar)., Vs the State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 6 Ors.