Jagdish S/O Jyotiram More vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6454 Bom

 Judgment                                            1                                wp3856.17.odt




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                 

                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                           WRIT PETITION NO. 3856 OF 2017



 Jagdish S/o. Jyotiram More, 
 aged about 42 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, 
 R/o. Shendurjana (Khurd), Tq. Tiwasa, 
 District : Amravati. 
                                                                         ....  PETITIONER.

                                      //  VERSUS //

 1. The State of Maharashtra, 
    through Secretary, Water Supply
    and Sanitation, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

 2. The Divisional Commissioner, 
    Amravati Division, Amravati. 

 3. The Collector, Amravati, District : Amravati.  

 4. The Tahsildar, Tiwasa, District : Amravati. 

                                                       .... RESPONDENTS
                                                                     .
  ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri J.B.Kasat, Advocate for Petitioner. 
 Shri V.P.Maldhure, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. 
 ___________________________________________________________________


                              CORAM : S.C.GUPTE, J.

DATED : AUGUST 22, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Judgment 2 wp3856.17.odt

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing

by consent of the parties.

3. The present petition challenges the order dated 18 th August,

2011 passed by Collector, Amravati on an application for permission to sink a

well under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Ground Water (Regulation for

Drinking Water Purposes) Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for

brevity) and the appellate order, dated 29 th April, 2017, passed by the

Divisional Commissioner, Amravati in appeal from that order. If one has

regard to the appellate order of the Divisional Commissioner it is apparent

that the appeal is rejected by a one line order saying that "appeal of the

appellant is rejected for want of jurisdiction". The petitioner's application

was admittedly under Section 3(2) of the Act. That application was rejected

by the appropriate authority by a reasoned order. Any person aggrieved by

any order passed by the appropriate authority under any provision of the Act

is entitled to challenge the order before an appellate authority within a

period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order by him. If the

order is made by the Collector, the appeal lies to the Commissioner. In the

present case, admittedly, the order on the application of the petitioner under

Section 3(2) of the Act was passed by the Collector and the appeal did lie

before the Commissioner.

Judgment 3 wp3856.17.odt

4. In the face of such a clear position providing for an appeal to

the Commissioner, the Divisional Commissioner could not have rejected the

appeal on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

5. Learned A.G.P. for the State points out that the appeal was

preferred beyond the period of thirty days as provided under Section 14 of

the Act. If the appeal was beyond time, the Divisional Commissioner is still

expected to consider whether he should condone the delay and admit the

appeal. If there is no power to condone the delay, the Divisional

Commissioner ought to hold accordingly with reasons stated in support of

such a proposition. The Divisional Commissioner cannot reject the appeal by

a one line order claiming want of jurisdiction. The impugned order of the

Divisional Commissioner dated 18th August, 2017 accordingly deserves to be

quashed and set aside and the matter remanded to him for fresh hearing

according to law.

6. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute by quashing and setting

aside the impugned order dated 29th April, 2017 passed by Divisional

Commissioner, Amravati and remanding the appeal preferred by the

petitioner before Divisional Commissioner, Amravati against order dated 18 th

August, 2011, to the Divisional Commissioner for a fresh hearing in

accordance with law.

Judgment 4 wp3856.17.odt

7. The Divisional Commissioner shall dispose of the appeal by a

reasoned order, after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a

copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court, before

the Divisional Commissioner on 8th September, 2017 at 11.00 a.m. The

Divisional Commissioner shall dispose of the appeal within a period of four

weeks thereafter.

JUDGE

RRaut..

  Judgment                                     5                                wp3856.17.odt