Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 980 (BOM)

Shaikh Rashid v. State Of Goa

2021-07-06

M.S.SONAK

body2021
JUDGMENT M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Sahish Mahambrey for the Petitioner, Mr. S.P. Munj, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2 and Mr. Abhay Nachinolkar for Respondent No.3. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.04.2021 by which the objections raised by the petitioner came to be summarily rejected possibly because an adjournment was applied for on behalf of the petitioner and the same was rejected. The order records that the advocate for the petitioner refused to argue the matter. 3. Mr. Mahambrey submits that the adjournment should have been granted and in any case, the impugned order is bereft of any reasons. He therefore submits that the impugned order may be set aside. 4. The record bears out that the petitioner presumed that an adjournment will be granted on 15.04.2021. The adjournment was declined by the authorities at which point of time the advocate for the petitioner, it appears, did not make any further submissions. 5. However, having regard to the fact that there are no reasons in the impugned order, yet another opportunity can be granted to the petitioner. In fact, by an interim order made on 29.04.2021, the petitioner was permitted to appear before the authorities in the proceedings for regularisation initiated by the respondent no.3 and directions were also issued to hear the petitioner before any order of regularisation is made. 6. No doubt, grant of further opportunity to the petitioner will occasion prejudice to the respondent no.3. This prejudice however, can be compensated by means of costs. 7. Accordingly, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the respondent no.3 herein within a period of two weeks from today, the impugned order dated 15.04.2021 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner will now have to be heard on his objections by the authorities and the matter of regularisation disposed of as expeditiously as possible. 8. If the petitioner does not pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent no.3 within a period of two weeks from today or deposit such costs with the authority for payment to respondent no.3, this petition, shall be deemed to have been dismissed without any further reference to this Court. 9. The Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 10. All concerned to act based on the authenticated copy of this Order.