Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1373 (BOM)

Latur Gorakshan Trust v. State of Maharashtra

2012-07-25

S.S.SHINDE

body2012
Judgment : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the Revision was fixed for hearing before the Revisional Authority on 20.5.2009. He invited my attention to the document at page 65 of the compilation of writ petition and submitted that, office of the Revisional Authority had sent a notice of hearing of the matter on 18.5.2009 by fax. The same was received at about 6.30 p.m. on that day. Therefore, a letter was written by one of the office bearer of the petitioner Trust, requesting to the Revisional Authority i.e. Minister, stating therein that, the notice of hearing is received by the petitioner on 18.5.2009, by fax. It is further stated in the said communication that, Shri Kantaprasad Vishnudasji Rathi, who is Secretary of the petitioner Trust, is not available in the town and eight days prior to receiving such notice, he has proceeded to Badrinath for religious trip. By the said letter, a prayer was made to the Revisional Authority that, at least ten days in advance, the date of hearing of the said revision would be communicated to the petitioner, so that, the petitioner would conveniently attend the said proceeding. It is submitted that, inspite of the said communication to the Revisional Authority, the Revisional Authority proceeded to hear the revision on 20.5.2009 and had closed the matter for orders. The learned counsel invited my attention to the impugned judgment and submitted that, the opening paragraph of the said judgment would clearly demonstrate that, the hearing of the revision initially was on 24.3.2009 and the revision was finally heard on 20.5.2009 and the matter was closed for orders. The learned senior counsel further invited my attention to the fact that, the impugned judgment itself mentions that, the petitioner herein has not filed any written note of arguments. It is submitted that, the subsequent communications dated 27.5.2009 and 22.6.2009, addressed by the Secretary of the petitioner Trust cannot be treated as written notes of argument. The petitioner was placed in such a position that, he has no option but to write the said letters to the Revisional Authority. It is submitted that, the subsequent communications dated 27.5.2009 and 22.6.2009, addressed by the Secretary of the petitioner Trust cannot be treated as written notes of argument. The petitioner was placed in such a position that, he has no option but to write the said letters to the Revisional Authority. According to learned senior counsel, at the first instance, those communications cannot be treated as written submissions and secondly, in the entire body of the judgment, there is no reference to such communications at Exh. “N” at pages 67 and 69 of the compilation of the writ petition. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that, the impugned judgment and order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, instead of entering into the merits of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct the Revisional Authority to hear the revision afresh, so that, the petitioner will get an opportunity to put forth its case. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed on his behalf and to the fact that, after the matter was closed for orders, by communications dated 27.5.2009 and 22.6.2009, the petitioner herein had forwarded their contentions, those are considered and thereafter, the impugned judgment and order is passed. It is submitted that, the notice to the petitioner was sent on 18.5.2009, intimating that the matter was fixed for hearing on 20.5.2009 and, therefore, now it cannot be said that, no notice was given to the petitioner. It was possible for the petitioner to send any other office bearers of the Trust to attend the hearing on 20.5.2009. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that, this writ petition is devoid of any merits and the same may be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, in the alternative, submitted that in case this court is not inclined to remand the matter back to the Revisional Authority in that case, the Revisional Authority may be directed to decide the Revision afresh in the time bound manner. 6. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, in the alternative, submitted that in case this court is not inclined to remand the matter back to the Revisional Authority in that case, the Revisional Authority may be directed to decide the Revision afresh in the time bound manner. 6. Upon hearing counsel appearing for the respective parties and upon perusal of the pleadings in the petition, annexures thereto and reply filed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5, this court is of the opinion that, the notice which was issued to the petitioner cannot be said to be the sufficient notice granting reasonable time to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to attend the proceeding before the Revisional Authority i.e. the Minister. It is not in dispute that, the notice was sent by the office of the Revisional Authority on 18.5.2009 by fax and the date of hearing was scheduled on 20.5.2009. It clearly appears from the letter written by the office bearer of the petitioner to the Revisional Authority at Exh. M (page 65) that, at the relevant time, the Secretary of the petitioner Trust was out of station and was not available either to receive the notice or to attend the proceeding on 20.5.2009. The fact that, the Secretary of the petitioner Trust was not available in the town to receive the notice and to attend the proceeding on 20.5.2009, has not been denied by the respondents. The contention of the respondents is that, any other office bearer of the petitioner trust could have attended the hearing on 20.5.2009. The said contention cannot be accepted, as the Secretary has important role in the affairs of the Trust and he can effectively represent the Trust in a better manner and therefore, according to the petitioner, his presence was necessary before the Revisional Authority. 7. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that, the notice which was given on 18.5.2009 by the Revisional Authority to the petitioner to attend the proceeding on 20.5.2009 was sufficient notice giving reasonable period so as to facilitate the petitioner to attend the proceedings, which was pending in Mantralaya, at Mumbai and the petitioner Trust is located/situated at Latur, which is more than 400 kilometers from Mumbai. 8. 8. Therefore, upon careful perusal of the documents annexed to the petition, there is no manner of doubt that, the notice which was issued by the Revisional Authority to the petitioner to attend the proceedings on 20.5.2009 was not sufficient notice. In normal course, the Revisional Authority should have acceded to the request of the petitioner, which was made on 19.5.2009 for postponement of the date of hearing. However, the Revisional Authority proceeded to hear the revision on 20.5.2009 and closed the matter for orders. From the judgment of the Revisional Authority, it does appear that, the Revisional Authority has not specifically adverted to the letters written by the Secretary of the petitioner Trust on 27.5.2009 and on 22.6.2009. Therefore, in real sense, it cannot be said that, the petitioner is heard by giving opportunity to effective arguments at the time of hearing of the Revision on 20.5.2009. It was expected from the Revisional Authority that, minimum seven days notice should have been given to the petitioner communicating the date of hearing or at least in urgent situation, intimation/notice should have been given three days prior to the date of hearing of the Revision. 9. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, this court is of the opinion that, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Revisionary Authority is not sustainable. In view of the discussions made herein above, it transpires that, the principles of natural justice have not been followed. The petitioner did not get proper opportunity to represent its case before the Revisional Authority. Therefore, in real sense, the judgment and order impugned in this petition, cannot be said to be a real adjudication after following the principles of natural justice. However, this Court refrains itself to enter into the merits of the matter since this Court feels it appropriate to remand the matter to the Revisional Authority for fresh hearing, in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the impugned judgment and order 31.8.2009 passed by the Minister of Revenue, Maharashtra State, in Case No. CTS 4308/1571/Case No.343/L-1 is set aside. The said Revision is restored to its original file. The parties will have opportunity to put forth their case before the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties should be communicated well in advance about the date of hearing. 11. The said Revision is restored to its original file. The parties will have opportunity to put forth their case before the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties should be communicated well in advance about the date of hearing. 11. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. Rule made absolute in the above terms. 12. Since the parties are litigating for a considerable period, it is expected that, the Revisional Authority will decide the revision as expeditiously as possible, however, within a period of six months from today.