Municipal Council, Through Its ... vs Mahadeo S/O Shioshankar Dalal And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8360 Bom

WP  466/11                                                1                             Judgment

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 466/2011
Municipal Council, Bhandara,
Through its Chief Officer, Bhandara,
Tah. & Dist. Bhandara.                                                                 PETITIONER
                                         .....VERSUS.....
1.     Mahadeo son of Shioshankar Dalal,
       Aged about 70 years, Occu. : Business,
       Resident of Civil Line, J.M. Patel College
       Road, Bhandara, Tah. & Dist. Bhandara.

2.     Sessions Judge, Bhandara,
       Distt. Bhandara.                                                            RESPONDE
                                                                                            NTS
                                  Mr. A. Shelat, counsel for the petitioner.
                                  Mr. N.G. Solao and N.S. Talmale, counsel for the respondent no.1.
                                  Mr.Shyam Bissa, A.P.P. for the respondent no.2.

                                             CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

                                              DATE        :       2  ND    NOVEMBER,   2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT 

                Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the judgment

and order dated 04.01.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Bhandara, in Criminal Revision No. 42/2010.

3. The principal submission of Mr.A. Shelat, learned counsel for

the petitioner is that the revisional Court had failed to consider (i) that

the appeal filed by the respondent no.1, in the Court of the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhandara was barred by limitation under

Section 169 read with Section 170 and 171 of the Maharashtra Municipal

Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 and

WP 466/11 2 Judgment

(ii) that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhandara could not

have entertained the said appeal as the respondent no.1 had failed to

deposit the statutory tax. He submitted that despite the petitioner having

raised both these grounds, the revisional Court had not dealt with the

same, whilst allowing the revision filed by the respondent no.1. Learned

counsel, therefore prays that the impugned judgment and order dated

04.01.2011 be quashed and set aside on this very ground and the matter

be remitted back to the revisional Court for deciding the same afresh in

accordance with law.

4. Mr. N.S. Talmale, learned counsel for the respondent no.1

does not dispute the fact, that both the aforesaid grounds raised by the

petitioner have not been dealt with by the revisional Court. He, however

states that no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and

order, which is decided on merits.

5. Perused the papers including the impugned judgment and

order dated 04.01.2011. It appears that despite the fact that the

petitioner had, amongst other issues, raised the aforesaid two issues, i.e.

i) that the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 in the Court of the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhandara was barred by limitation under

Section 169 read with Section 170 and 171 of the Maharashtra Municipal

WP 466/11 3 Judgment

Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965; and (ii)

that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class could not have entertained

the said appeal as the respondent no.1 had failed to deposit the statutory

tax, the revisional Court has not considered or dealt with the said two

submissions and had proceeded to decide the aforesaid revision on other

grounds.

6. Admittedly, both the aforesaid issues despite having being

raised, have not been considered by the Revisional Court. Both these

issues raise important questions of law. Thus, without going into the

merits, after going through the papers, I am of the opinion that the

impugned judgment and order dated 04.01.2011 needs to be quashed

and set aside, with a direction to the revisional Court to decide the said

revision, afresh on its own merits in accordance with law. The Revisional

Court shall amongst other grounds also decide the two issues, i.e. (i)

whether the appeal filed by the respondent no.1, in the Court of the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhandara was barred by limitation

under Section 169 read with Section 170 and 171 of the Maharashtra

Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act,

1965 and (ii) whether there was any failure on the part of the respondent

no.1 to deposit the tax, and if yes, whether the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class could have entertained the said appeal.

WP 466/11 4 Judgment

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned

judgment and order dated 04.01.2011 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Bhandara in Criminal Revision No.42 of 2010 is quashed and set

aside and the matter is remitted back to the revisional Court for deciding

the said revision, afresh on its own merits in accordance with law.

Accordingly, Criminal Revision No.42/2010 is restored back to its original

file. The learned Judge shall decide the said revision as expeditiously as

possible. It is made clear that this petition has otherwise not been

considered on merits and all contentions of both the parties are kept

open. The petitioner and the respondent no.1 to appear before the

revisional Court on 11.12.2017 at 11.00 a.m.. Rule is made absolute in

the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. All the parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

JUDGE

APTE