Partly allowed

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

Bombay HC27 Sept 2021WP/534/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to set aside an appellate order on grounds that he was not effectively heard. The court found the order passed in absence of the petitioner, violating natural justice. The writ petition was partly allowed, quashing the order and remitting the matter for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and order were quashed and set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Appellate Board for a fresh hearing on the appeal.

Anant v. Lotlikar., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

9 WP-534-2019.DOC

¶2

Meena

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.. 534 OF 2019

¶5

ANANT V. LOTLIKAR …Petitioner

¶6

Versus STATE OF GOA, THR. CHIEF …Respondents SECRETARY AND 2 ORS.,

¶7

Mr. Sahish Mahambrey, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶8

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

¶9

Mr. Menino Pereira , Advocate for the respondent No.3.

¶10

CORAM: MANISH PITALE, J.

¶11

DATED: 27^th September, 2021.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties.

¶14

2. A short point arises for consideration in this petition. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 14/03/2019 passed by the respondent No.2 deserves to be set aside on the ground that the petitioner was not effectively heard by the respondent No.2 i.e. the Appellate Authority. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had filed an appeal before the respondent No.2, being aggrieved by an order passed by the respondent No.3-Authority rejecting his application for regularization of construction. Although, initially notice dated

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

27th September, 2021

¶17

9 WP-534-2019.DOC

¶18

28/12/2018 was issued fixing the date of hearing of the appeal as
14/01/2019, when the petitioner appeared before the respondent
No.2 – Board i.e. Appellate Authority on the said date, he was
informed that the hearing had been concluded on 11/01/2019
itself. The notice for the said date of hearing fixed for
11/01/2019 was according to the petitioner received in the
evening of 14/01/2019. On this short ground, it is submitted
that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be
remitted to the respondent No.2 – Board for a fresh hearing.

¶19

3. In this petition, the respondent No.4 was added as a party, being the original complainant who had claimed that the petitioner had indulged in unauthorized construction. Notice has been served to the said respondent but he has chosen not to appear before this Court.

¶20

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 3 are already served. The respondent Nos.1 and 3 are represented through Counsel while none appears on behalf of the respondent No.2 -Appellate Board.

¶21

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the said respondents was unable to demonstrate before this Court that the notice subsequently issued advancing the date of hearing to 11/09/2019 was indeed served on the petitioner before the said date of hearing.

¶22

Page 2 of 3 27th September, 2021

¶23

9 WP-534-2019.DOC

¶24

6. Therefore, it becomes apparent that the impugned order has been passed in the absence of the petitioner and that, it violates principles of natural justice.

¶25

7. On this basis, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be granted an opportunity to effectively place his case before the respondent no.2- Board for a decision on his appeal.

¶26

8. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the respondent no.2 – Appellate Board is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 for a fresh hearing on the appeal filed by the petitioner. The respondent No.2 shall consider the contentions of the petitioner on merits and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

¶27

9. Needless to say, contentions of the rival parties on merits are kept open. The petitioner shall place a copy of this order of this Court before the respondent No.2 – Board for further action in the matter.

¶28

MANISH PITALE, J.

¶29

MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Digitally signed by MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Date: 2021.09.28 17:29:40 +05'30'

¶30

Page 3 of 3 27th September, 2021

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anant v. Lotlikar., v State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary 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

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

Shaikh Nazir., Vs Parvimbi Shaikh.

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