Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 623 (BOM)

Ravi s/o Anandilal Umre v. Collector, Wardha

2008-04-28

A.M.KHANWILKAR, R.C.CHAVAN

body2008
JUDGMENT 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties as short question is involved. Counsel for the respondents and intervenors waive notice. By consent, matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith. 3. The short question that arises for our consideration is; whether the application submitted by the petitioners for recognizing Aghadi dated 26/12/2006 to the Collector, Wardha is barred by limitation? The requirement to register Aghadi emanates from the mandate of Section 63 of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships) Act, 1965 (In short, the Act). The admitted facts are that the election results were declared on 27/11/2006 and in terms of Section 63, applications for recognizing Aghadi was required to be submitted within a period of not more than one month from the date of notification of election results. It is the case of the petitioners that such application was submitted to the Collector on 26/12/2006. That position is substantiated from two wp5862.07.sxw 4/7 clinching circumstances. The first is that the letter sent by the petitioners is dated 26/12/2006. The same bears seal indicating that it has been received on 26/12/2006 in the office of the Collector and acknowledging that position. As the application submitted was lacking in some matters, those matters were supplemented and cured by the petitioners on 27/12/2006. The Collector, however, in his communication dated 13/12/2007 informed the petitioners that the proposal submitted by them cannot be considered as it was barred by limitation having been submitted on 27/12/2006. The correctness of this view is put in issue in the present petition. 4. Insofar as the factual position, as to whether the application was submitted on 26/12/2006 or 27/12/2006, we have no hesitation in accepting the case of the petitioners that the same was submitted in the office of the Collector on 26/12/2006, as is evident from the endorsement on the said communication acknowledging its receipt in the office of the Collector on that date. If it is submitted on 26/12/2006, the wp5862.07.sxw 5/7 same is clearly within one month from the date of notification of election results. 5. Assuming that the application preferred by the petitioners was to be treated as having been submitted on 27/12/2006, even then, we have no difficulty in accepting the petitioners' claim that the same was within limitation. If it is submitted on 26/12/2006, the wp5862.07.sxw 5/7 same is clearly within one month from the date of notification of election results. 5. Assuming that the application preferred by the petitioners was to be treated as having been submitted on 27/12/2006, even then, we have no difficulty in accepting the petitioners' claim that the same was within limitation. In as much as, Section 63 envisage that such application has to be filed within a period not more than one month from the date of notification of election results. When expression from is used in Section 63(2B), the same would necessarily mean that the first date in a series of dates or period of time will have to be excluded, in view of Section 10 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904. If any Authority is required to reinforce this position, we may usefully refer to the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of Tarun Prasad Chatterjee Vs. Dinanath Sharma reported at (2000) 8 SCC 649 . In that case, the Apex Court was called upon to consider the provisions of Section 9 of General Clauses Act, 1897 which are in para materia to wp5862.07.sxw 6/7 Section 10 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904. In this view of the mater, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the application, even if it was to be treated as having been filed on 27/12/2006, as observed by the Collector in the impugned letter is correct, even then the same was well within time. 6. We are conscious of the fact that the Collector in the reply filed before this Court has asserted that the application was required to be rejected also because of other considerations. However, this is not the fact mentioned in the impugned communication. It is well established position that the Authority cannot be permitted to improve upon the reason which is not recorded in the impugned communication by way of affidavit. 7. Assuming that there are some deficiencies in the application submitted by the petitioners, those deficiencies may be cured, if curable one. For that the Collector shall provide opportunity to the petitioners to cure such deficiencies. It wp5862.07.sxw 7/7 would be a different matter if the defects pointed out by the Collector while presenting the application are found to be incurable or fatal. For that the Collector shall provide opportunity to the petitioners to cure such deficiencies. It wp5862.07.sxw 7/7 would be a different matter if the defects pointed out by the Collector while presenting the application are found to be incurable or fatal. In that case, however, the Collector may be free to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 8. Suffice it to observe that this petition ought to succeed, the impugned communication is quashed and set aside. Instead, the original application submitted by the petitioners is restored to the file of the Collector for being reconsidered afresh on its own merit and to pass appropriate decision as may be advised. All questions are kept open to be considered on its own merits. No order as to costs. 9. The Collector shall decide the application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from today. The interim arrangement ordered by this Court shall remain in force till the Collector finally decides the application for recognition of Aghadi, which has been restored in terms of this order.