Bombay High Court
Nandkumar Murlidhar Gandhile vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 26 February, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
wp551.21
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1121 WRIT PETITION NO.551 OF 2021
NANDKUMAR S/O MURLIDHAR GANDHIE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AD OTHERS
.....
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/b
Mr. K. F. Shingare
Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. D.R. Kale
Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Mr. S. S. Thombre
Advocate for Respondent No. 5 : Mr. K. J. Suryawanshi
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
DATED : 26 th FEBRUARY, 2021
PER COURT:-
1. By consent, heard finally at admission stage.
2. Mr. Sapkal, learned senior counsel has assailed the order
passed by the Hon'ble Minister mainly on the ground that even
though there is inordinate delay in filing the revision before the
Hon'ble Minister, the Hon'ble Minister has not passed a separate
order on the application seeking condonation of delay of more than
one and half years. Learned senior counsel submits that the Hon'ble
Minister has passed one line order for condonation of delay on
merits. However, the Hon'ble Minister has not made any
observations as to what merits he has considered while condoning
such inordinate delay. Learned senior counsel submits that since the
Hon'ble Minister has not passed a separate order on the application
for condonation of delay, the petitioner has lost his right to challenge
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2021 03:43:53 :::
wp551.21
-2-
the said order. Mr. Sapkal, learned senior counsel submits that after
the decision of the Hon'ble Minister, the petitioner came to know
about filing of an application by respondent No.4 himself before the
Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 25.6.2019 for
obtaining certified copy of the judgment and order, specifically
disclosing in the said application that he wanted to challenge the
order by filing an appeal. Learned senior counsel Mr. Sapkal, submits
that respondent No.4 has not disputed the said aspect of filing an
application seeking a certified copy of the order passed by the
Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Mr. Sapkal,
learned senior counsel submits that respondent No.4 has specifically
contended in his application seeking condonation of delay that he
came to know about the order passed by the Divisional Joint
Registrar, Co-operative Societies only in the month of March, 2020
and as such, the same is contrary to the copy of application
submitted before this Court alongwith this Writ Petition at page 64
Exh. F.
Mr. Sapkal, learned senior counsel, in order to substantiate
his submissions, placed reliance on the following cases:-
I. Dilawar Hakim Shah v. Special Recovery Officer &
Others, reported in 2006 (1) Bom.C.R. 141;
II. Madhao Somaji Sarode v. Jotiba Dhyan Upasak
Shikshan Sanstha Dudhala & Others, reported in 2004
(6) Bom.C.R. 684.
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2021 03:43:53 :::
wp551.21
-3-
3. Mr. Thombre, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits
that the Hon'ble Minister has considered the application seeking
condonation of delay on merits and accordingly condoned the delay.
Learned counsel submits that the Hon'ble Minister has considered
the case on merits. The petitioner has very clearly used his surname
sometimes as only Gandhile and sometimes as Patil. In fact, his
surname is Gandhile Patil. Learned counsel submits that the
petitioner is declining that he is father of his own children. There are
school leaving certificates of those children placed on record and
after considering the same, the Hon'ble Minister has passed the
impugned order.
4. Mr. Kale, learned Government Pleader has supported the
order passed by the Hon'ble Minister. Learned Government Pleader
submits that the Hon'ble Minister has considered that due to re-
outbreak of COVID pandemic situation, the revision could not be filed
within time and as such the Hon'ble Minister has condoned the delay
on merits.
5. It appears that respondent No.4 had filed a separate
application seeking condonation of inordinate delay caused in filing
the revision. The petitioner herein had strongly resisted the said
application by filing say. Thus, it was expected from the Hon'ble
Minister to consider the said application and the say filed by the other
side after hearing both the parties, on its own merits. It appears that
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2021 03:43:53 :::
wp551.21
-4-
the Hon'ble Minister has not taken pains either to consider the
grounds raised in the application for condonation of delay or the
grounds raised by the other side seeking rejection of the said
application.
6. It appears that in this Writ Petition, at Exh. F page 64, the
petitioner has filed a copy of the application dated 25.6.2019
submitted by respondent No.4 before the Divisional Joint Registrar,
Co-operative Societies for obtaining a certified copy of the judgment
and order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative
Societies. It is to be noted here that the Divisional Joint Registrar,
Co-operative Societies has passed the order on 15.5.2019 which
was impugned before the Hon'ble Minister. However, respondent
No.4, in para 12 of his application seeking condonation of delay
caused in filing the revision, has specifically contended that the copy
of order dated 15.5.2019 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar,
Co-operative Societies was not served upon him and the he came to
know about the order dated 15.5.2019 in the month of March, 2020.
It appears that respondent No.4 has also not disputed filing of the
application on 25.6.2019 before the said authority for obtaining
certified copy of the judgment and order dated 15.5.2019.
7. In view of the same and considering the ratio laid down in the
above cited cases, I am of the considered opinion and I am left with
no other choice but to remand the matter to the Hon'ble Minister to
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2021 03:43:53 :::
wp551.21
-5-
decide the application seeking condonation of delay afresh. Though
learned counsel for respondent No.4 has repeatedly submitted
before this Court that the Hon'ble Minister should decide the
application seeking condonation of delay and the main revision
simultaneously, however, such directions cannot be given for the
reason that learned counsel for respondent No.4 is assuming that the
Hon'ble Minister is going to condone the delay in any way. Learned
counsel for respondent No.4 has not considered the other possibility
that the Minister may reject the application seeking condonation of
delay and that even there is no possibility of simultaneous hearing.
However, without getting influenced by the observations made in this
order, it is for the Hon'ble Minister to consider the application seeking
condonation of delay caused in filing the revision on its own merits.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
I. Writ Petition is hereby partly allowed.
II. The impugned order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the Hon'ble
Minister for Co-operation, Marketing and Textile, Mantralaya,
Mumbai in Revision No. 337 of 2020 is hereby quashed and set
aside.
III. The matter is remanded back to the Hon'ble Minister with
following directions:-
wp551.21
a) The application seeking condonation of delay caused
in filing the revision be restored to the file of the
Hon'ble Minister.
b) The Hon'ble Minister shall decide the said application
separately after giving opportunity of being heard to
both the parties within three months from the date of
appearance of the parties before him.
c) The parties shall appear before the Hon'ble Minister on
12.3.2021.
IV) Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
( V. K. JADHAV, J.)
rlj/
