Bombay High Court
Urmila Hanumant Jagtap vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 2 May, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
{1} wp631-16
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.631 OF 2016
Urmila Hanumant Jagtap PETITIONER
Age - 40 years, Occ - Sarpanch / Housewife
R/o Bhavanwadi, Taluka and District - Beed
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS
Through Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2.
Additional Collector,
Collector Office, Beed
3. The Gram Sevak Grampanchayat Office,
Njavamwadi, Taluka and District - Beed
4. Sujata Gangaram Bhosle
Age - 30 years, Occ - Sarpanch
5. Pushpa Babasaheb Rathod,
Age - 31 years, Occ - Gram Panchayat Member
6. Mankarnika Vijay Jagtap
Age - 45 years, Occ - Grampanchayat Member
7. Kaushalya Pralhad Jagtap
Age - 47 years, Occ - Grampanchayat Member
8. Rajendra Narayan Shinde,
Age - 38 years, Occ - Grampanchayat Member
9. Hanumant Manohar Jagtap,
Age - 45 years, Occ - Grampanchayat Member
Respondents No.4 to 9
R/o Bhavanwadi, Taluka and District - Beed
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:40:23 :::
{2} wp631-16
.......
Mr.
S. G. Kawade, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.
S. K. Tambe, AGP for respondent-State
Mr.
P. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 8
Mr.
D. B. Kale, Advocate for respondent No.9
.......
[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
DATE : 2nd MAY, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with
consent of learned advocates for the parties.
2. The petitioner
ig takes exception to Order dated 12 th
January, 2016 passed by Additional Collector, Beed on
application of even date moved by the petitioner praying for
sending documents to hand writing expert for his opinion.
3. It is contended that the order is too terse to show any
application of mind. Neither any hearing has preceded the order
nor any opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner.
According to learned advocate for the petitioner, the impugned
order is a non speaking one.
4. Learned advocate for the respondents No.4 to 8 state that
the application has been intended to procrastinate the
proceedings. However, he is not in a position to support the
order by any cogent material that the order is a reasoned one or
a speaking order.
{3} wp631-16
5. Even learned AGP is also not in a position to support the
order by any reasonable excuse to the form in which the order is
passed.
6. Perusal of the impugned order shows that there is only one
word "ukeatwj" (Rejected). The order does not depict any reason
for passing such an order. Although it is contended to be an
order, it does not appear to contain the requisites having
preceded to acquire sanctity of a quasi judicial order .
7. Having regard to aforesaid, the parties reconcile to that the
application deserves to be reconsidered.
8. In the circumstances, the impugned order, as appearing on
page 68 of the writ petition is set aside. Application filed on 12 th
January, 2016 for sending documents to handwriting expert for
opinion, stands restored for reconsideration by the authority in
accordance with law and facts of the case after affording
opportunity of hearing to all the concerned.
9. Writ petition, as such, stand allowed. Rule is made
absolute in aforesaid terms.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
drp/wp631-16
