Hemlata W/O Shrikrushna Andhare vs State Of Maha., Thr. Principal ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2050 Bom

                                                                    18jud wp 20.2023.odt
                                           1

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

                      WRIT PETITION (WP) NO. 20/2023

         Hemlata W/o Shrikrushna Andhare,
         Age: 45 Years, Occu. Agriculturist,
         R/o Govind, Moreshwar Colony,
         Akola, Tq. & District Akola.                            ..... PETITIONER

                                     // VERSUS //

1.       The State of Maharashtra,
         Through its Principal Secretary,
         Department of Agriculture,
         Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development
         & Fisheries, Mantralaya,
         Mumbai- 400032

2.       Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Agricultural
         University, Akola, Through its Registrar,
         Amravati Road, Akola, Tq. & Dist.
         Akola.

3.       Hon'ble Chancellor,
         Maharashtra Agricultural Universities
         and Governor, State of Maharashtra,
         Raj Bhawan, Malabar Hill,
         Mumbai, 400 035.
         Amended as per Court's
         order dated 04.01.2023                             .... RESPONDENT(S)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no. 1 Mr. A.R. Patil, Advocate for respondent no. 2 None for respondent no. 3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      CORAM :           SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                        M. W. CHANDWANI, J.J.
                      DATED      :      01/03/2023

SMGate
                                                             18jud wp 20.2023.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent.

3. The impugned order passed by respondent no. 3 suffers for

more than one infirmity. It does not give any reason, and unreasoned

order adversely affecting the position of a person on any Authority is

anathema to the principles of rule of law and reasonableness under

Article 14 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The

impugned order has also been passed without giving any opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner and thus, it has made the petitioner to suffer

civil consequences in violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. Such order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

5. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that

since the order has been passed upon suo moto initiative taken by

respondent no. 3, there would be no need for this Court to remand the

matter back to respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 3, if thinks fit can

always reconsider the issue in his own discretion. The submission is

reasonable and we accept it.

SMGate 18jud wp 20.2023.odt

6. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned

order is hereby quashed and set aside.

7. Liberty is granted to respondent 3 to reconsider the whole

issue, in his discretion.

8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to

costs.

(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

SANDIP MAHADEV GATE Personal Assistant to the Hon'ble Judge Digitally signed by SANDIP MAHADEV GATE Date: 2023.03.01 16:49:50 +0530

SMGate