Bombay High Court
Smt. Surekha Mahipati Sutar And ... vs State Election Commission And Ors on 11 December, 2015
Bench: M.S. Sonak
1 WP 11547-15 @ Connected Matters.doc-35
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11547 OF 2015
Smt. Vaijayata Deepak Warke and Ors. ] ... Petitioners
Versus
State Election Commission and Ors. ] ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.11306 OF 2015
Smt. Surekha Mahipati Sutar and Ors. ] ... Petitioners
Versus
State Election Commission and Ors. ] ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.11307 OF 2015
Shri Dhondiram Ishwara Patil and Ors. ] ... Petitioners
Versus
State Election Commission and Ors. ] ... Respondents
Mr. Tanaji Mhatugade for Petitioners in all Writ Petitions.
Mrs. D.S. Mondkar i/b Mr. S.B. Shetye for Respondent No.1 in all
petitions
Ms Vaishal Nimbalkar, A.G.P., for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Writ
Petition No. 11547 of 2015.
Ms M.S. Bane, B-Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Writ
Petition No. 11306 of 2015.
Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition
No. 11307 of 2015.
Mr. P.D. Dalvi, Amicus Curiae.
CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.
Date of Reserving the Judgment : 03 December 2015.
Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 11 December 2015.
JUDGMENT :-
1] Rule, in each of these petitions. With the consent of and at the
request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable
forthwith.
DSS 1 of 16
2 WP 11547-15 @ Connected Matters.doc-35
2] The final hearing in these petitions concluded on 3 December
2015 and the judgment was reserved. However, as the learned counsel
for the Petitioners pointed out that the last date for filing of
nomination for election to the Panchyat was 4 December 2015, an
interim order was made staying the disqualification incurred by the
Petitioners. The interim order dated 3 December 2015 reads thus:
1. The final hearing in these petitions has just been
concluded. The Judgment is reserved. However, the learned
Counsel for petitioners points out that elections to the
Panchayat are scheduled shortly and the last date for filing
nominations is 04/12/2015. Accordingly, it is necessary to
make an interim order.
2. The petitioners in these petitions have been disqualified
under Section 14B of The Maharashtra Village Panchayats
Act, 1959 ('said Act') for failure to lodge account of elections
taken place within time and manner required by the State
Election Commission. The case of the petitioners in Writ
Petition No.11306 of 2015 and Writ Petition No.11307 of
2015 is that they had, in fact, lodged the account of their
election expenses with the Returning Officer within a period of
30 days from the date of election i.e 27/11/2012. However,
notices as to why action should not be taken against them
under Section 14B of the said Act were issued after the period
of two years i.e. on 26/11/2014, and at that stage, they did
not have any ready proof. Along with the petitions, however,
they produced a document entitled 'Receipt' signed by the
Returning Officer, which at least prima-facie, indicate that
that the petitioners had, in fact, lodged their account of
election expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of
the result of the elections. Such document is at Exh.B, page
12 in Writ Petition No.11306 of 2015. In fact, the petitioners
in Writ Petition No.11306 of 2015 were not ultimately elected
at the election and the learned Counsel for petitioners
submitted that, that is an additional reason as to why they
may not have maintained any copy of the account of election
DSS 2 of 16
3 WP 11547-15 @ Connected Matters.doc-35
expenses, though the same was lodged within the prescribed
period. If the provisions of Section 14B of the said Act are
perused, then mere non-filing of account of election expenses
does not operate as a disqualification. The State Election
Commission, whose powers have now been delegated to the
Collector, has to be satisfied that the failure to lodge the
account of election expenses within the time prescribed was
without good reason or justification. The Collector, when
making the impugned order, at least prima-facie does not
seem to have adverted to these aspects.
4. Insofar as the petitioners in Writ Petition No.11547 of
2015 are concerned, they claim that all of them were declared
elected from their respective wards 'unopposed'. It is the case
of the petitioners that since there was no elections or contest
insofar as they are concerned, they were not required to file
their election expenses. Reliance has been placed upon the
decision rendered by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in
case of Kacho Mohd. Ali Khan Vs. Shri Kushok Bakula 1 in
respect of the contention that an unopposed candidate is not
required to lodge any account of election expenses.
5. In view of the aforesaid, case is made out for grant of
interim relief. In several matters of this nature, interim relief
has been granted by this Court pending hearing of appeal by
the Divisional Commissioner.
4. Accordingly, the impugned orders by which the
petitioners have been disqualified, are stayed until the final
disposal of the petitions.
5. All concerned to act on basis of authenticated copy
of this order."
3] The Petitioners in Writ Petition NO. 11306 of 2015 had contested the
for elections to the Gram Panchayat of Village - Parite, Tal- Karveer, Dist.
Kolhapur held in November 2012. The Petitioners, however, failed to get
elected. It is the case of the Petitioners that they had lodged the account of
election expenses on 19 December 2012 before the prescribed authority.
1 Vol. XXXIV E.L.R. 323
DSS 3 of 16
4 WP 11547-15 @ Connected Matters.doc-35
However, on 26 November 2014, i.e., after period of almost two years, the
Petitioners were served with notices, requiring them to show cause as to
why they should not be disqualified under Section 14B of the Maharashtra
Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (said Act) for contesting elections or for being
a member of any Village Panchayat for a period of five years. The
Petitioners submitted their response on 2 December 2014 alongwith reply,
but they could not furnish acknowledgement receipt dated 19 December
2012, since the same was not readily available with them at the time of
submission of reply. The Collector, Kolhapur, by the impugned order dated
11 March 2015 has disqualified the Petitioners, thereby rendering the
Petitioners ineligible for contesting elections or being member of any Gram
Panchayat for a period of five years from the date of order. Hence, the
petition.
4] The facts and circumstances in Writ Petition No. 11307 of 2015 are
also quite similar to the facts and circumstances in Writ Petition No. 11306
of 2015, except that the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 11307 of 2015 were
duly elected as Members of the Village Panchayat, Parite, Dist. Kolhapur. By
the impugned order dated 11 March 2015, the Collector, Kolhapur has
disqualified the said Petitioners from continuing as Members of the
Panchayat and further rendering them ineligible for contesting elections to
any Gram Panchayat for a period of five years from the date of the order.
Hence, the petition.
5] In Writ Petition No.11547 of 2015 as well, the facts and
circumstances are similar to facts and circumstances in Writ Petition Nos.
11306 and 11307 of 2015, except that the said petition relates to Village
Panchayat, Kaneriwadi, Dist. Kolhapur and further the Petitioners therein
DSS 4 of 16
5 WP 11547-15 @ Connected Matters.doc-35
were elected "unopposed" as Members of said Panchayat. By the impugned
order dated 2 March 2015, the Collector, Kolhapur has disqualified the said
Petitioners from continuing as Members of the Panchayat and further
rendering them ineligible for contesting elections to any Gram Panchayat
for a period of five years from the date of the order. Hence, the petition.
6] As the issue of availability of alternate remedy arose for
determination, Mr. P.D. Dalvi was appointed as an Amicus Curiae to assist
this Court. This Court records gratitude to Mr. P.D. Dalvi, for the assistance
rendered in the matter.
7] Mr. Mhatugade, learned counsel for the Petitioners in each of these
petitions, has submitted that the Petitioners, who have been disqualified
under Section 14B of the said Act have no remedy by way of approaching
the State Government or Divisional Commissioner in terms of Section 16(2)
of the said Act and therefore, there is no question of relegating the
Petitioners to avail any alternate remedy under the provisions of the said
Act. Mr. Mhatugade submitted that the remedy under Section 16(2) of the
said Act is available only to an elected Member of the Panchayat whose
office has become vacant on account of his having incurred disqualification
under Section 14 of the said Act. Mr. Mhatugade submitted that in the
present case, the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 11306 of 2015 are not
even the Members of the Panchayat and therefore, there is no question of
their offices becoming vacant. Similarly, the Petitioners in Writ Petition NO.
11307 of 2015 and 11547 of 2015, though members of the Village
Panchayat, have not incurred disqualification under Section 14 of the said
Act. Therefore, there is no question of the Petitioners availing alternate
remedy under Section 16(2) of the said Act. Even otherwise, Mr.
DSS 5 of 16
6 WP 11547-15 @ Connected Matters.doc-35
Mhatugade submitted that availability of an alternate remedy under the
statute is never a bar to the maintainability of a petition under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India.
8] Mr. P.D. Dalvi, learned Amicus Curiae as well as Ms Vaishali
Nimbalkar, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in these petitions,
submitted that alternate remedy under Section 16(2) of the said Act is very
much available to the Petitioners, who ought to be relegated to avail the
same.
9]
In the first place, therefore, it is necessary to determine whether the
said Act provides for any alternate remedy in the matter of disqualification
under Section 14B of the said Act. Secondly, assuming that there is such
alternate remedy, whether the Petitioners in the present petitions are
required to be relegated to such remedy, in the facts and circumstances of
the present case.
10] Section 14B of the said Act provides for disqualification by the State
Election Commission. Sub-section (1) of Section 14B provides that if the
State Election Commission is satisfied that a person,--
(a ) has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the
time and in the manner required by the State Election Commission,
and
(b ) has no good reason or justification for such failure,
Sub-section (2) of Section 14B of the said Act provides that the State
Election Commission may, for reason to be recorded, remove any
disqualification under sub-section (1) of reduce the period of any such
disqualification.
DSS 6 of 16
7 WP 11547-15 @ Connected Matters.doc-35
11] Section 10A of the said Act provides that the superintendence,
direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the
conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats shall vest in the State Election
Commissioner. Sub-section (2 ) of Section 10A of the said Act provides that
the State Election Commissioner may, by order, delegate any of his powers
and functions to any officer of the Commission or any officer of the State
Government not below the rank of Tahsildar.
12] The State Election Commission by Notification dated 19 November
2010 duly published in the official Gazette and in the exercise of powers
conferred by Section 10A(2) of the said Act has delegated its powers under
Section 14B(1) of the said Act to the concerned Collector and the powers
under Section 14B (2) of the said Act to the concerned Divisional
Commissioner.
13] In view of the delegation of powers therefore, the power for
disqualifying a person under Section 14B (1) of the said Act stands vested
in the concerned Collector, whereas the power under Section 14B(2) of the
said Act to remove any disqualification under sub-section (1) or to reduce
the period of such disqualification is vested in the concerned Divisional
Commissioner.
14] Any person aggrieved by an order of disqualification under Section
14B (1) of the said Act therefore, has a remedy to approach the Divisional
Commissioner to whom the powers of the State Election Commission under
Section 14B (2) of the said Act have since been delegated. The Petitioners
in Writ Petition No. 11306 of 2015, who are not Members of any Panchayat,
therefore, have a remedy to petition the Divisional Commissioner in terms
DSS 7 of 16
8 WP 11547-15 @ Connected Matters.doc-35
of Section 14B (2) of the said Act in the matter of disqualification order
dated 11 March 2015, made by the Collector under the provisions of
Section 14B(1) of the said Act. The Divisional Commissioner, in terms of
Section 14B(2) of the said Act will have the necessary powers to remove
disqualification or reduce the period of any such disqualification. There is
no merit in the contention of Mr. Mhatugade that the Divisional
Commissioner can exercise powers under Section 14B(2) only suo motu and
any person, who has suffered a disqualification order under Section 14B(1)
of the said Act has no right to approach the Divisional Commissioner. Such
submission is not borne out by the statutory provisions. In any case, the
circumstance that an authority has powers to take suo motu action does not
mean or imply that such authority is disabled from taking action upon
being petitioned to take action. Conferment of suo motu powers is a
measure of amplitude not restriction.
15] Section 16 of the said Act, which deals with disability from
continuing as a Member of Panchayat, reads thus:
16. Disability from continuing as member: - (1 ) If any Member of
a panchayat ,--
(a ) who is elected or appointed as such, was subject to
any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 14 at the
time of his election or appointment, or
(b ) during the term for which he has been elected or
appointed, incurs any of the disqualifications mentioned in
Section 14, he shall be disabled from continuing to be a
member, and his office shall become vacant.
(2 ) [If any question whether a vacancy has occurred under this
Section is raised by the Collector suo motu or on an application
made to him by any person in that behalf, the Collector shall decide
the question as far as possible within sixty days from the date of
receipt of such application. Until the Collector decides the question,
the member shall not be disabled under sub-section (1 ) from
continuing to be a member.] Any person aggrieved by the decision of
DSS 8 of 16
9 WP 11547-15 @ Connected Matters.doc-35
the Collector may, within a period of fifteen days from the date of
such decision, appeal to the State Government, and the orders
passed by the State Government in such appeal shall be final :
Provided that, no order shall be passed under this sub-section
by the Collector against any member without giving him a
reasonable opportunity of being heard.
16] There is no dispute that the State Government has delegated its
appellate powers under Section 16(2) of the said Act to the concerned
Divisional Commissioner. Therefore, under the scheme of Section 16, the
concerned Collector is the authority to decide the question whether any
vacancy has occurred on account of any Member incurring disqualification
under Section 14 of the said Act. Any person, aggrieved by decision of the
Collector may, within fifteen days from the date of such decision, appeal to
the State Government , which in the present case, would be the concerned
Divisional Commissioner and the statutory finality has been accorded to the
decision of the State Government or the Divisional Commissioner as the
case may be. The proviso to Section 16 commands that no order shall be
passed under this sub-section by the Collector against any member without
giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
17] Mr. Mhatugade is right in his submission that the provisions
contained in Section 16 of the said Act apply to the Members of Panchayat
and therefore, the alternate remedy provided under Section 16(2) of the
said Act will not be available to the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 11306 of
2015, since they failed to get themselves elected as Members of the
Panchayat. However, as noted earlier, such persons have remedy to petition
the Divisional Commissioner under Section 14B(2) of the said Act. The
Divisional Commissioner to whom, powers under Section 14B(2) of the said
Act have been delegated may, for reasons to be recorded, remove any
DSS 9 of 16
10 WP 11547-15 @ Connected Matters.doc-35
disqualification under Section 14B(1) of the said Act or reduce the period
of any such disqualification. Mr. Mhatugade is, however, not right in his
submission that the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 11307 of 2015 and
11547 of 2015, who are admittedly Members of the Panchayat, will not
have any alternate remedy under Section 16(2) of the said Act, merely
because Section 16(1) of the said Act makes reference to disqualification
provided in Section 14 of the said Act.
18] Section 14 of the said Act provides for several instances of
disqualifications which a Member might incur. One of disqualifications for a
person to be a Member of the Panchayat to continue as such, is contained in
sub-section (1)(j-4) of Section 14 of the said Act, which reads thus:
14. Disqualifications:- (1) No person shall be a Member of a
Panchayat continue as such, who-
(a) ..........
(a-1) ..........
(b) ..........
....
....
(j-4) has been disqualified by the State Election Commission
under Section 14B of the said Act;
19] Therefore, once the State Election Commission or the Collector to
whom the powers of State Election Commission have been delegated,
disqualifies a Member of a Panchayat under Section 14B(1) of the said Act,
such Member can be said to have been disqualified under Section 14 of the
said Act. Incidentally, the issue of such disqualification, in terms of Section
14B(1) read with Notification dated 19 November 2010 issued in exercise
of powers conferred by Section 10A(2) of the said Act, shall have to be
determined by the Collector. Therefore, in terms of the provisions contained
in Section 16(2) of the said Act, any person aggrieved by the decision of the
DSS 10 of 16
11 WP 11547-15 @ Connected Matters.doc-35
Collector, which would obviously include the disqualified Member, will have
remedy to appeal to the State Government or the Divisional Commissioner,
since the powers of the State Government have been delegated to the
Divisional Commissioner of the purposes of Section 16(2) of the said Act.
Thus, the Petitioners Writ Petition Nos. 11307 and 11547 of 2015, have an
alternate remedy by way of instituting appeals before the Divisional
Commissioner in the matter of any disqualification under Section 14B of
the said Act.
20] From the aforesaid, it is clear that the Petitioners in each of these
petitions have alternate remedies provided under the Statute, i.e., the said
Act. The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 11306 of 2015, who are
disqualified non-members have alternate remedy of petitioning the
Divisional Commissioner in terms of provisions contained in Section 14B(2)
of the said Act read with Notification dated 19 November 2010. Similarly,
the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 11307 and 11547 of 2015, who are
disqualified Members of the Panchayat have alternate remedy of instituting
the appeals to the Divisional Commissioner in terms of provisions contained
in Section 16(2) of the said Act. In view of the availability of such alternate
statutory remedy under the Statute, there is no reason for the writ Court to
entertain their petitions and enquire into the legality and validity of
disqualification orders made in the first instance. The Petitioners, in each of
these petitions, are therefore, required to be relegated to avail the alternate
remedies available to them under the said Act.
21] Although, the issue of alternate remedy was not involved in case of
Suchita M. Kewati & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. 2 , the following
2 2013 BCI (O) 1015
DSS 11 of 16
12 WP 11547-15 @ Connected Matters.doc-35
observations in the said decision are of assistance in the context of the
scheme of the provisions contained in Section 14B and Section 16 of the
said Act.
9. In view of above, the position is that, it is the Collector
of the District who is competent to exercise powers under
Sections 14B and 16 of the said Act. It cannot, therefore, be
said that the Collector is not competent either to pass an order
of disqualification under Section 14B or under clause (j-4) of
sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the said Act or to declare the
vacancy, in exercise of its power under sub-section (2) of
section 16 of the said Act. No doubt that unless there is an
order of disqualification passed under Section 14B, no order
of declaration of vacancy under sub-section (2) of Section 16
of the said Act can be passed by the Collector. The Collector
will have to follow the procedure for disqualification under
Section 14B initially and then to exercise its power under sub-
section (2) of Section 16 of the said Act for declaration of
vacancy in accordance with law.
22] Similarly, this Court, in case of Balasaheb K. Tambe and ors. Vs.
Nanasaheb J. Khade and ors.3, in the context of provisions contained in
Sections 10A, 14B, 14(1)(j-4) of the said Act has made the following
observations at paragraph '11', by reference to Notification dated 19
November 2010:
11. In the present matter the authority of the State
Election Commission to delegate its powers is relevant. Sub
Section 1 of Sec. 10A of the Panchayat Act gives the authority
to the State Election Commissioner to control, direct and
superintend the preparation of the electoral roles. Sub Section
4 of Sec. 10A also empowers the commission to issue such
special or general orders or direction, which may not be
inconsistent with the provisions of the Act for fair and free
elections. Sec. 14B of the Panchayat Act is amended and
introduced subsequently in the year 2010. Whereas Sec. 10A
of the Panchayt Act is incorporated in the year 1994. The
powers of delegation are bestowed upon the State Election
3 2014(12) LJSOFT 313
DSS 12 of 16
13 WP 11547-15 @ Connected Matters.doc-35
Commission under Sec. 10A(2). Though Sec. 14B of the
Panchayat Act is introduced subsequently by way of an
amendment, the same would not make any difference. An
amendment when introduced becomes an integral part of
original statute. Different provisions of the same statute will
have to be read in harmony. The words used in original
statute should be presumed to be used in the same sense in the
amended portion.
Sec. 14B gives powers to the State Election Commission
to disqualify the candidate for not submitting the election
expenses in time. The State Election Commission possesses the
authority and power to disqualify any person from being a
member of panchayat who has not submitted the election
expenses within the stipulated period. The State Election
Commission is bestowed with the authority of delegation
under sub Section 2 of Sec. 10A. The said provision does not
lay down any restrictions on the authority of State Election
Commissioner to delegate its powers. Reading said provision,
it is manifest that, the powers of the State Election
Commissioner to delegate any of his powers and function are
unfettered and are without any reservation and qualification.
Sec. 10A(2) of the Panchayat Act empowers the State Election
Commission to delegate any of its powers and functions to
any officer, meaning thereby that even powers U/Sec. 14B can
be delegated. When the provision is unambiguous, then the
literal interpretation is the rule. In view of powers delegated
to the him, the Collector is acting on behalf of State Election
Commission while disqualifying the petitioner U/Sec. 14B of
the Panchayt Act. In view of that, it cannot be said that the
order passed by the Collector disqualifying petitioner for non
submission of election expenses is without jurisdiction or
authority.
23] This Court, in case of Santosh M. Walanj Vs. Manoj S. Jadhav 4, has
held that Section 16 of the said Act, in fact, gives effect to Constitutional
Scheme enshrined in Part IX of the Constitution of India and that there is no
inconsistency whatsoever between the provisions contained in Section
16(1)(a) of the said Act and Article 243-O of the Constitution of India.
4 2013(2)Mh.L.J.68
DSS 13 of 16
14 WP 11547-15 @ Connected Matters.doc-35
24] In view of the aforesaid, there is no reason to entertain these
petitions and the Petitioners are required to be relegated to avail the
alternate remedy before the Divisional Commissioner. The Petitioners in
Writ Petition No. 11306 of 2015 have alternate remedy by way of
petitioning to the Divisional Commissioner under Section 14B(2) of the said
Act. There does not appear to be any period of limitation prescribed for the
purposes of availing such remedy. Therefore, such remedy shall have to be
availed within a reasonable period. If the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.
11306 of 2015, institute petitions before the Divisional Commissioner
within four weeks from today, then the Divisional Commissioner is directed
to entertain the same on merits. The Divisional Commissioner is further
directed to dispose of such petitions within a period of twelve weeks from
the date when such petitions are lodged. If the petitions are lodged within a
period of four weeks from today, then the interim order granted on 3
December 2015 shall operate till disposal of the petitions by the Divisional
Commissioner. If, however, the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 11306 of
2015 fail to institute petitions under Section 14B(2) of the said Act to the
Divisional Commissioner within a period of four weeks from today, then the
interim orders made on 3 December 2015 shall stand vacated insofar as the
said Petitioners are concerned. No doubt, the said Petitioners shall be
entitled to apply afresh for interim relief before the Divisional
Commissioner, who shall consider such application, in accordance with law
and on its own merits.
25] The Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 11307 of 2015 and 11547 of
2015 have remedy of instituting appeals before the Divisional
Commissioner under Section 16(2) of the said Act. Such appeals, however,
were required to be filed within a period of fifteen days from the date of
DSS 14 of 16
15 WP 11547-15 @ Connected Matters.doc-35
decision of the Collector. In Writ Petition No. 11307 of 2015, the date of
decision of the Collector is 11 March 2015 and in Writ Petition No. 11547
of 2015, the date of the decision of the Collector is 2 March 2015. The
period of fifteen days prescribed under Section 16(2) of the said Act has
since expired. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case,
however, rather than go into the issue as to whether the Divisional
Commissioner has the powers to condone the delay in institution of appeal
under Section 16(2) of the said Act, the interest of justice would be met if
directions are issued to the Divisional Commissioner to decide the appeals
on merits, if instituted by the Petitioners in the said two petitions, within a
period of four weeks from today. Such direction is issued, considering the
circumstance that the Petitioners had instituted these petitions and were
bonafide pursuing their remedy against the impugned orders made by the
Collector. Besides, Section 14B(2) of the said Act, which even otherwise
empowers the Divisional Commissioner, for reasons to be recorded, to
remove any any disqualification under Section 14B(1) or reduce the period
of disqualification, does not prescribe any period of limitation as such.
26] Therefore, if the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.11307 of 2015 and
11547 of 2015 institute appeals within a period of four weeks from today,
then the interim order made on 3 December 2015 to operate in their favour,
until the Divisional Commissioner disposes of the appeals instituted by the
said Petitioners. The Divisional Commissioner is directed to dispose of such
appeals, if instituted within a period of four weeks from today, within a
period of twelve weeks from the date of their lodgment. Such disposal shall
be on merits and in accordance with law.
27] The reasons for grant of interim relief have been set out in the order
dated 3 December 2015 and it is for the same reason that the interim
DSS 15 of 16
16 WP 11547-15 @ Connected Matters.doc-35
orders are directed to continue during the operation of the appeals before
the Divisional Commissioner, should such appeals be instituted within a
period of four weeks from today.
28] Rule is, accordingly, discharged in each of the petitions. However, the
Petitioners are granted liberty to institute the appeals/petitions before the
Divisional Commissioner within a period of four weeks from today. Such
appeals/petitions, if instituted during the period of four weeks from today,
shall be disposed of by the Divisional Commissioner in accordance with law
and on their own merits, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
their lodgment. The interim order granted by this Court on 3 December
2015 shall operate for a period of four weeks from today and in case, the
appeals/petitions are instituted during the said period, then until the final
disposal of the appeals/petitions by the Divisional Commissioner.
29] After these petitions were closed for orders, Civil Application No.
3232 of 2015 was made and produced on 9 December 2015 seeking
intervention in Writ Petition No. 11547 of 2015. The same was not
entertained, as the matter had already been closed for orders. However,
now that the Petitioners are relegated to avail alternate remedies under the
Statute, the Applicant in the said Civil Application is also granted liberty to
apply for intervention before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional
Commissioner to decide such application, in accordance with law and on its
own merits.
30] There shall be no order as to costs.
31] All concerned to act on the basis of authenticated copy of this order.
(M. S. SONAK, J.)
DSS 16 of 16
