Prakash Ambadas Kargude vs The Union Of India And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 13722 Bom

                                                              903-wp-3602-2020.odt



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    903 WRIT PETITION NO.3602 OF 2020
                           WITH WP/3625/2020

                    PRAKASH AMBADAS KARGUDE
                                 VERSUS
                  THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
                                    ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Chandak Raviraj R. Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 in WP/3602/2020 : Mr. A.G.

Talhar, ASGI a/w Mr. S.S. Deve, Standing Counsel Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : Mr. M.V. Ghatge Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. D.S. Manorkar Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 in WP/3625/2020 : Mr. A.G.

Talhar, ASGI a/w Mr. A.N. Patale, Standing Counsel ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

DATED : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2021

PER COURT:-

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 identifcation.

2. The standing counsel for Union of India has fled an

affidavit in replv through Smt. Bharati Annasaheb Sagare, Deputv

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 dulv authorized bv respondent nos.3 and 4

to fle this affidavit. The learned standing counsel now informs us that

903-wp-3602-2020.odt

the affiant Smt. Sagare was not empowered to fle this affidavit. The

District Collector who is the Arbitrator under the National Highwavs

Authoritv of India, would depute another officer, who is competent to fle

the affidavit on his behalf or he mav himself fle such affidavit.

3. We do fnd it intriguing that respondent nos.3 and 4 have

authorized Smt. Sagare to fle affidavit and now it is said, on the verv

same dav when the affidavit is fled, that some other officer will have to

be deputed. Be that at it mav, let such affidavit in replv be fled on or

before 07.10.2021.

4. Since one more affidavit is to be fled as noted above, we

fnd that the District Collector, Beed needs to eppress 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 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.

903-wp-3602-2020.odt

(d) Bv 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 illegallv passed. Whether

the Arbitrator has the power to quash an award?

5. We eppect the District Collector to consider the above

aspects so as to tender a proper epplanation through his affidavit in

replv.

6. The standing counsel for Union of India tenders an

apologv and submits that, bv mistake, his appearance has been

entered on behalf of respondent no.2. Shri Manorkar, the learned

advocate actuallv appears for the said authoritv. Shri Manorkar

confrms 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 fle a

vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.2.

7. The learned AGP points out that the District Collector is

arraved in this matter in his capacitv of being an Arbitrator under the

National Highwavs Act. The standing counsel for Union of India

submits that thev are instructed to appear on his behalf and would also

fle 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 fled.

903-wp-3602-2020.odt

8. List both these petitions in the urgent categorv on

12.10.2021.

  (S.G. MEHARE. J.)                     (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)




Mujaheed//