Disposed

Sandhya Suresh Karalkar v. the Block Development Officer ( Taluka Tiswadi) and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Oct 2024WP/187/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order passed by a Block Development Officer other than the officer who had heard the matter. The Court found this breached principles of natural justice on the face of the record and set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to BDO Taluka Tiswadi, Panaji, for fresh hearing within four weeks from 12.11.2024; no costs.

Sandhya Suresh Karalkar Vs the Block Development… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

905-WP-187-2024.DOC

¶2

2024:BHC-GOA:1814-DB

¶3

Maria S.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.187 OF 2024

¶6

Sandhya Suresh Karalkar...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Block Development Officer (Taluka
Tiswadi) And 6 Ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr S. D. Padiyar, Senior Advocate with Mr Mahesh S. Raikar,
Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶11

Ms Akshata Bhat, Additional Government Advocate for respondent
Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6.

¶12

Mr Dinesh E. Naik, Advocate for respondent No.7.

¶13

CORAM: M. S. KARNIK & VALMIKI MENEZES ,JJ.

¶14

DATE: 22^nd October, 2024

¶15

P.C.

¶16

 Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr S. D. Padiyar for the petitioner.

¶17

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order is passed by
an Officer other than the one who had heard the matter. Such an exercise
is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Though learned Counsel for
respondents no.2 and 3 and respondent no.7 oppose the petition
contending that there is alternate remedy available, however, in the facts of
the present case, we are satisfied that as the impugned order is in breach of

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

22^nd October 2024

¶20

905-WP-187-2024.DOC

¶21

the principles of natural justice as can be seen on the face of the record, we
are inclined to set aside the impugned order.

¶22

3.The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the
Block Development Officer (Taluka Tiswadi), Panaji, for fresh hearing in
accordance with law. The parties to appear before the Block Development
Officer on 12.11.2024 at 11:00AM where further schedule of the hearing
will be fixed. The Block Development Officer to decide the case within a
period of four weeks from 12.11.2024. The Block Development Officer
need not issue fresh notice to the parties to this petition.

¶23

4. All contentions are kept open. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶24

5. The petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶25

VALMIKI MENEZES, J. M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶26

Signed by: MARIA SUZANA REBELLO Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 22/10/2024 19:31:54

¶27

Page 2 of 2 22^nd October 2024

Sandhya Suresh Karalkar v. the Block Development Officer ( Taluka Tiswadi) and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandhya Suresh Karalkar v. the Block Development Officer ( Taluka Tiswadi) and 6 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

Lakshmi Jayashankar and Anr. Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and 2 Ors.

Namita Fatarpekar Vs State of Goa, Thr. Police Inspcetor, Cuncolim Police Station and Anr.

Sankalp Shrikrishna Karpe Vs Directorate of Panchayats, Thr. Additional Director of PANCHAYATS-1 and 2 Ors.

Lucinda a Doris Vs the State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secretary and 9 Ors.

Caesar Agnelo Mascarenhas and Anr., Vs the Custodian of Enemy Property for India and 2 Ors.

Antonio F. Rodrigues Vs Girish Mahale and 7 Ors.