Bombay High Court
Shahdev Ambadas Kargude vs The Union Of India And Others on 12 October, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Mehare
*1* 920wp3602a3625o20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3602 OF 2020
PRAKASH AMBADAS KARGUDE
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.3625 OF 2020
SHAHDEV AMBADAS KARGUDE
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Shri Chandak Raviraj R.
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Shri A.N.Patale
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Shri D.S.Manorkar
Advocate for Respondents 3 and 4 : Shri S.S. Deve
Advocate for Respondents 5 and 6 : Shri M.V. Ghatge
AGP for the Respondents/ State : Smt.V.N.Patil Jadhav
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
S.G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE :- 12th October, 2021
Per Court :-
1. Leave to correct the prayer clause. Correction be
carried out forthwith.
2. The petitioners in these two petitions are identically
placed. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the
*2* 920wp3602a3625o20
respective sides on 23.09.2021, the following order was passed:-
"1. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners received certain papers under
the Right to Information Act, 2005. The
compilation of said papers along with advocate's
attestation as true copies (60 pages), is placed on
record. The same is marked as 'X-1' for
identification.
2. The standing counsel for Union of India has filed
an affidavit in reply through Smt. Bharati
Annasaheb Sagare, Deputy Collector, Land
Acquisition, Jaikwadi Project, Beed dated
23.09.2021 on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4.
She has stated in the opening sub-para that she has
been duly authorized by respondent nos.3 and 4 to
file this affidavit. The learned standing counsel
now informs us that the affiant Smt. Sagare was
not empowered to file this affidavit. The District
Collector who is the Arbitrator under the National
Highways Authority of India, would depute
another officer, who is competent to file the
affidavit on his behalf or he may himself file such
affidavit.
3. We do find it intriguing that respondent nos.3 and
4 have authorized Smt. Sagare to file affidavit and
now it is said, on the very same day when the
affidavit is filed, that some other officer will have
to be deputed. Be that at it may, let such affidavit
in reply be filed on or before 07.10.2021.
4. Since one more affidavit is to be filed as noted
above, we find that the District Collector, Beed
needs to express his view on the following issues
as an answering respondent :
(a) At page 17 in compilation X-1, it is clear that two
advocates along with 3 other parties have signed
on a blank paper on 20.11.2019. The allegation is
that the roznama dated 20.11.2019 was later on
written above the said signatures on the blank
paper.
(b) The notice of hearing dated 06.11.2019 served
upon the petitioners, indicates that the date of
*3* 920wp3602a3625o20
hearing was 20.11.2019 at 11.30 am before the
Arbitrator cum District Collector, Beed in his
office. However, the impugned order signed bv the
Arbitrator cum District Collector Beed carries the
date as 14.11.2019.
(c) The District Collector shall produce the register in
which the entries of orders/judgments passed are
recorded, for the entire months of October,
November and December, 2019.
(d) By the impugned order dated 14.11.2019, the
Arbitrator has quashed and set aside the award
dated 13.02.2017 on the ground that it was
delivered without jurisdiction and was illegally
passed. Whether the Arbitrator has the power to
quash an award?
5. We expect the District Collector to consider the
above aspects so as to tender a proper explanation
through his affidavit in reply.
6. The standing counsel for Union of India tenders an
apology and submits that, by mistake, his
appearance has been entered on behalf of
respondent no.2. Shri Manorkar, the learned
advocate actually appears for the said authority.
Shri Manorkar confirms the said statement. As
such, the appearance of the standing counsel on
behalf of respondent no.2 is discharged and the
appearance of Shri Manorkar be recorded. He
would file a vakalatnama on behalf of respondent
no.2.
7. The learned AGP points out that the District
Collector is arrayed in this matter in his capacity of
being an Arbitrator under the National Highways
Act. The standing counsel for Union of India
submits that they are instructed to appear on his
behalf and would also file a vakalatama so as to
complete the formalities. As such, the appearance
of the learned AGP on behalf of the Collector /
Arbitrator in these matters is discharged and the
appearance of the standing counsel is recorded.
Vakalatnama to be filed.
8. List both these petitions in the urgent category on
12.10.2021."
*4* 920wp3602a3625o20
3. Pursuant to the above, the affidavit in reply has been
filed on behalf of respondent No.2 on 03.10.2021 and on behalf
of respondent No.3 on 07.10.2021.
4. The Resident Deputy Collector Shri Santosh
Zumbarlal Raut has tendered an unconditional apology in
paragraph 2 of his affidavit dated 07.10.2021, for the reason that
the office staff committed a mistake in preparing the Roznama
dated 20.11.2019 and legal action will be initiated against the
erring employees. He has then submitted in the affidavit that the
matter was concluded vide order dated 20.11.2019 and was
signed on the same day. Erroneously, the date 14.11.2019 is
mentioned. He has then set out in paragraph 6 of the affidavit as
under :-
"6. I further request to Hon'ble Court that the
answering respondent is with all fairness ready
to give a fresh hearing in the said matter in
presence of all the parties concerned and will
pass order thereafter."
5. In view of the above, both these Writ Petitions are
partly allowed. The order dated 20.11.2019 is quashed and set
aside. Consequentially, Arbitration Application No.62/2019 is
restored to the file of the District Collector and Arbitrator,
*5* 920wp3602a3625o20
National Highways Authority, Beed. The litigating parties would
appear before the said authority on 25.10.2021 at 12:00 noon.
Formal notices need not be issued. The parties shall abide by the
dates of hearing on which the matter would be posted by the said
authority. Written notes of submissions along with the oral
submissions are permitted. The said authority would close the
hearing of the matter by 30.10.2021 and deliver a reasoned order
on or before 30.11.2021.
6. We are passing this order in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and especially in the light of paragraph
6 of the affidavit dated 07.10.2021 filed by Shri Santosh Raut.
This order shall not be cited as a precedent.
kps (S.G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
