Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Animal And Fishery ... vs Vijay Dhondu Pawar And Others on 5 February, 2024
CA 13635/22
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
37 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13635 OF 2022
IN RA/266/2023
WITH
REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 266 OF 2023
IN WP/3263/1995
Maharashtra Animal And Fishery Sciences Univeristy Through Its Registrar
And Another
VERSUS
Vijay Dhondu Pawar And Others
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. K.P. Rodge h/f. Mr. P.G. Rodge
AGP for Respondent 3 in WP : Mr. Mr. K.R. Jamdhade
Advocate for petitioner in WP : Mr. M.N. Navandar
...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
Dated : February 05, 2024
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
2. This Court on 29.3.2019 has passed the following order :-
". Shri Navandar, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that vide Government Resolution
dated 02.07.2001, the Veterinary Colleges stood transferred
to Maharashtra Animal and Fisheries University, Nagpur.
The learned counsel, in the circumstances, prayed for
issuance of notice to the said University requiring the said
University to take further steps in the present petition.
2. Issue notice to the said University on the address
provided in the pursis, returnable on 10.06.2019."
3. In pursuance of the notice, the University filed Vakalatnama in the
matter on 10.6.2019. Thereafter, when the matter was posted on
13.1.2020, this Court has passed the following order :-
"1. In the cacophony between the Mahatma Phule Krushi
Vidyapeeth and the Maharashtra Animal and Fisheries University,
Nagpur, the fact remains that the order passed by the Industrial
Court, Ahmednagar on 23/02/1995, which is impugned in the
present writ petition is not implemented till date.
2. On the earlier date of hearing, it was informed that the
petitioner Mahatma Phule Krushi Vidyapeeth stood affiliated /
transferred to the Maharashtra Animal and Fisheries University,
Nagpur, including petitioner No. 2 Veterinary College.
3. Today, the learned Counsel Mr Navandar appear on behalf
of the Maharashtra Animal and Fisheries University, Nagpur and
make a statement that the record of the proceedings is not
traceable in the University. The instructions received by the
learned Counsel is to the effect that after 1993, the respondent
No.1 never reported to the petitioner No.2 - College, and as
such, the direction to make him permanent on the post of 'Lab
Technician', is of no consequence.
4. It is to be noted that, though the order passed by the
Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in the year 1995 in favour of
respondent No.1, and the College as well as the University were
directed to implement the order within three months, it is
apparent that respondent No.1 also did not initiate any steps.
5. Since the petitioners are not armed with any document and
record to proceed with the writ petition, the petition deserves a
dismissal, since it is pending for adjudication in the this Court
since year 1995 viz. almost for a period of 2 ½ decade. The writ
petition is, therefore, dismissed."
4. On 20th January 2022, this Court passed order for speaking to the
minutes of the order dated 13.1.2022, which is as under :-
"1. Not on Board. Taken on Board at the request of learned
Advocate Mr. M. N. Navandar.
2. A Praecipe is moved for speaking to the minutes in respect
of the order dated 13.01.2022.
3. Paragraph no. 2 in the order dated 13.01.2022 be
substituted with the following lines : -
"On the earlier date of hearing, it was informed that the
petitioner no. 2 - Veterinary College which was affiliated to
Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, now stand affiliated to
Maharashtra Animal and Fisheries University, Nagpur.
4. Further, the appearance of Mr K. P. Rodge h/f Mr P. G.
Rodge, Advocate for the petitioners, be shown in place of Mr. M.
N. Navandar in the order dated 13.01.2022.
5. The order dated 13.01.2022 be corrected accordingly.
6. Praecipe is accordingly disposed of."
5. In the review application, the learned counsel for the University
submits that since the University was not made party, they were not aware
of the proceeding, although University has filed Vakalatnama in the matter
on 10.6.2019, they were not aware about the proceeding and nature of the
proceeding.
6. It is not disputed that Vakalatnama was filed on 10.6.2019 by the
University. The University was also present on 30.1.2022 the order which
is sought to be recalled. Thereafter the present review application was filed
on 19.9.2022 by contending that since University was not made party in
the proceedings, was not able to defend.
7. List this matter for further consideration on 26.2.2024.
8. Advocate for respective parties to file brief synoptical notes, issues
involved in the matter and the submissions to be canvassed along with the
list of judgments on which they wish to rely.
( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )
ssc/
