Mayaram S/O Sahajram Sadhwani vs The Collector Washim And Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 3393 Bom

                                1
                                                             wp466.15.odt

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

                   Writ Petition No.466 of 2015


  Mayaram s/o Sahajram Sadhwani,
  Aged about 67 years,
  Occupation - Retired,
  R/o Karanja (Lad),
  District Washim.                                ... Petitioner


       Versus


  1. The Collector, Washim,
     District Washim.

  2. Chief Officer, Municipal Council,
     Karanja (Lad),
     District Washim.

  3. Municipal Council, Karanja,
     through its Chief Officer,
     Municipal Council, Karanja.                  ... Respondents


  Petitioner in person.
  Shri   N.S.   Rao,   Assistant   Government   Pleader   for   Respondent 
  No.1.
  Shri S.A. Sahu, Advocate, holding for Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate 
  for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.




::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017                    ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:45:20 :::
                                       2
                                                                      wp466.15.odt

                Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.

th Dated : 20 June, 2017

Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :

1. Heard the petitioner appearing in person, who was

granted time for arguing the matter on 6-6-2017. The order

passed on 6-6-2017 is reproduced below :

" In view of order dated 07-05-2015 passed by the learned Single Judge (Shri Z.A. Haq, J.) the matters are required to be decided by the Division Bench. The petitioner appearing in-person seeks two weeks' time in this matter. Time is granted by way of last chance. No further adjournment shall be granted. If he wanted to engage Counsel, he should take suitable steps. This Court shall not permit adjournment to engage Counsel on the next occasion when the matter shall be called out."

2. The dispute in this petition relates to a date of birth of

the petitioner, who was employed as Octroi Superintendent and

retired with effect from 31-7-2004 by an order

dated 27-6-2005. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is

wp466.15.odt

14-7-1948, whereas it is the case of the respondents that the date

of birth of the petitioner was 14-7-1946. Acting on this basis, the

respondents have retired the petitioner on his attaining the age

of superannuation of 58 years with effect from 31-7-2004.

3. The petitioner appearing in person has invited our

attention to the judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition

No.2264 of 2012 [Municipal Council, Karanja Lad, through its

Chief Officer, Karanja Lad, District Washim v. The Additional

Commissioner, Amravati/Regional Director of Municipal

Administration, Amravati Division, Amravati, and another] on 14-

10-2013. In the said decision, this Court has clearly observed

that it is a serious disputed question of fact which is involved in

the matter. The Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, after

remand of the matter by this Court in the said decision, recorded

the finding that the date of birth of the petitioner is 14-7-1948.

This was the subject-matter of appeal before the Collector,

Washim, who passed an order on 31-10-2015 setting aside the

order of the Chief Officer and recording the finding that the date

wp466.15.odt

of birth of the petitioner is 14-7-1946.

4. The petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of

preferring a revision under Section 318 of the Maharashtra

Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships

Act, 1965 ("the said Act"). This matter was admitted on 9-2-

2017, keeping the question of alternate remedy open to be

adjudicated at the time of final hearing. We do not find any

reason as to why the petitioner should not have recourse to the

alternate remedy of filing a revision under Section 318 of the

said Act by approaching the Divisional Commissioner. If there is

a delay in filing a revision, the revisional authority shall take into

consideration the period spent in prosecuting this petition to

condone the delay caused in filing an appeal.

5. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

matter, we dismiss this petition on the sole ground of existence of

alternate efficacious remedy of filing a revision under

Section 318 of the said Act. All questions are left open. Rule

wp466.15.odt

stands discharged. No order as to costs.

                         JUDGE                                        JUDGE

   Lanjewar