Union Of India, Thr. Sec., Dept. Of ... vs Shrikant Motiram Dahikar And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1593 Bom

                                                                              wp.6896.16

                                                  1



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                                       ...

WRIT PETITION NO. 6896/2016

1) Union of India Through its Secretary Department of Posts Ministry of Communication & Information Technology Dak.Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi -110 001.

2) The Director (Budget & Administration) Department of Posts Ministry of Communication & Information Technology Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110 001.

3)      The Director of Accounts (Postal)
        Department of Posts
        Maharashtra Circle  
        Aakashwani Chowk, Civil Lines, 
        Nagpur.                                                      ..PETITIONERS

                                    v e r s u s

1)      Shrikant  Motiram Dahikar 
        E/o Sainath Apartment 
        Friends Colony Chowk 
        Katol Road, Nagpur- 440 013.

2)      Ganesh Kisanrao Kothale 
        R/o Takli sim, Hingna road 
        Post Jaitala, Nagpur  440 036. 

3)      Smt. Malti  Chandrakant Chandekar 
        174,  Shreenagar, Near NIT Garden 
        Opp:  Narendranagar 
        Nagpur -440 015.                                            ...RESPONDENTS





                                                                                                           wp.6896.16

...........................................................................................................................

Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar, counsel for petitioners Mr. S.K.Verma, counsel for respondents ...........................................................................................................................

                                                    CORAM:    SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK   &
                                                                   MRS . SWAPNA  JOSHI, JJ
                                                                                          . 
                                                    DATED :       10  April, 2017
                                                                    th

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ petition is heard

finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for

the parties.

By this Writ Petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, dated 30th March 2016 allowing an

Original Application filed by the respondents and directing the petitioners to

take appropriate steps in pursuance of the directions issued by the Tribunal in

the impugned order.

Mrs.Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, inter

alia, states that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the Original

Application filed by the respondents without following the principles of natural

justice. It is stated that after the Original Application was listed before the

Tribunal for admission, the Tribunal did not issue any notice to the petitioners

and behind the back of the petitioners, by accepting the statement made on

behalf of the respondents, that the issue involved in the Original Application is

wp.6896.16

covered by the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, allowed

the Application filed by the respondents. It is submitted that no opportunity

whatsoever was granted to the petitioners to deny the claim of the

respondents.

The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that

the Original Application was disposed of at the stage of admission without

hearing the counsel for the petitioners. It is admitted that immediately after

the Original Application was filed and circulated before the Tribunal, the

Tribunal has allowed the Original Application without service of the notice on

the petitioners.

It appears, on hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on

a perusal of the impugned order, that the impugned order of the Tribunal is

unsustainable as no opportunity whatsoever was granted to the petitioner to

defend the case of the respondents. At the stage of admission itself, without

serving a notice of the Original Application on the petitioners, the Original

Application filed by the respondents was allowed and certain directions were

issued against the petitioners. It was expected of the Tribunal to have at

least ensured that the petitioners were served and heard before the Original

Application was allowed.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is partly

allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is

wp.6896.16

remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the Original Application filed by the

respondents in accordance with law. The parties undertake to appear before

the Tribunal on 14th June 2017 so that service of notice to the parties could be

dispensed with.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as

to costs.

                        JUDGE                          JUDGE

sahare