Bombay High Court
Shri Ganj Ward Maa Vaishno Seva Samitee, ... vs Union Of India Through Its General ... on 29 January, 2024
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:1113
-1- 910 fa 139.22.odt. jud..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 139 OF 2022
APPELLANT : 1. Shri Ganj Ward Maa Vaishno Seva
( Original applicant) Samittee, Gondia, having registered
office at Goyal Chowk, Ganj Ward,
Kudwa Line, Gondia- 441601, acting
through its President Shri Ramakant
Kamalkishor Agrawal,
Aged about 52, Occupation: Business,
having office at Goyal Chowk, Ganj
Ward, Kudwa Line, Gondia- 441601
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS : 1. The Union of India,
(Original Respondent) through General Manager,
S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur
2. Chief Operations Manager, S.E.C.
Railway, Gondia
**************************************************************
Shri Atul Pande, Advocate for appellant.
Shri P.V. Navlani, Advocate for respondents.
**************************************************************
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATED : 29th JANUARY, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates for
the parties. Perused the record and proceedings.
-2- 910 fa 139.22.odt. jud..odt
2. In this appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Railway
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short "the Act of 1987"), challenge
is to the judgment and order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, whereby the
Tribunal dismissed the claim application made by the
appellant/claimant.
3. With the able assistance of learned Advocates for the
parties, I have gone through the record and proceedings. On going
through the record, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to set aside
the order passed by the Tribunal and remand the claim application
to the Tribunal for fresh decision, in accordance with law.
4. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the
evidence adduced by the appellant and the respondents was not
taken into consideration. Similarly, the issues framed were not
reproduced in the order. No specific finding was recorded by the
Tribunal, on each issue. It is seen that on the date of the argument,
the Advocate for the applicant was absent. The Tribunal, in the
absence of the Advocate, proceeded to pass this order, which, in my
view, is erroneous and cannot be sustained under the law. The
Tribunal had two options, namely either to dismiss the claim
-3- 910 fa 139.22.odt. jud..odt
application in default or to decide the claim application in
accordance with law on merits by taking entire evidence into
consideration. In this case, the Tribunal opted to decide the claim
in the absence of the Advocate for the applicant. Learned Tribunal
proceeded on the assumption that in the absence of the Advocate
on the date of the argument, the Tribunal was not duty bound to
consider the evidence and recorded a finding on all the issues. In
my view, therefore, this order which has been passed without
analyzing the evidence on record cannot be sustained. The order
deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following order:-
5. First appeal is allowed.
i) The order dated 23.10.2019 passed by Railway
Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur is set aside.
ii) Claim application is restored.
iii) The claim application is sent back to the Tribunal
for deciding it afresh on the basis of the available evidence.
6. The Advocates for the parties submit that they would
appear before the Tribunal on 05.02.2024 at 11.00 AM. The
Advocates for the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on
05.02.2024 at 11.00 AM. The record and proceedings be sent
-4- 910 fa 139.22.odt. jud..odt
back immediately to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall decide the
claim application afresh within two months.
7. First Appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(G. A. SANAP, J.)
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/01/2024 18:50:21
