Shri Baliram Tukaram Patil v. M/s. Vijay Stone Services

Shri Baliram Tukaram Patil & Others V/s. M/s. Shrikrishna Constructions & Others. .. .. Petitioners Respondents. Mr. K. S. Dewal, for the Petitioner in both the matters. Mr. A. K. Sakhare, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Vikram Chavan, for Respondent No.1 in W.P. No.881 of 2012. Mr. S. K. Shinde i/b. Mr. P. S. Jain, for Respondent No.1 in W.P. No.880 of 2012. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for Respondent Nos.7 to 9 in both the matters. P.C:- CORAM: G.S.GODBOLE,J. DATE : 24th FEBRUARY, 2012. 1 Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. The respective Advocates for Respondent No.1 in both the Writ Petitions waives service. Learned AGP waives service for Respondent Nos.7 to 9 in both the Writ Petitions. - 2 - 904-wp-880-881-2012 2 Mr. Deval makes a statement that no reliefs are claimed against Respondent Nos.2 to 6 in Writ Petition Nos.880 of 2012 and 881 of 2012. 3 I have perused the record. The impugned orders are passed by the Hon'ble Minister for State (Revenue) in Appeal filed by Respondent No.1 in the respective Petitions and, hence, Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are not necessary parties to this Writ Petition and the Petition can be disposed off in their absence without issuing notice to them. Since I am not inclined to go into merits of the controversy, it is not necessary to hear the Respondent Nos.2 to 6. 4 In these Petitions, the following order was passed on 14th February, 2012. Heard Mr. Dewal for the Petitioner in both the Petitions, “1 Mr. Shinde for Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.880 of 2012 and Mr. Chavan, for Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No. 881 of 2012 and the learned AGP Ms. Cardozo, for Respondent Nos.7 to 9 in both the Petitions. One of the grievance of the Petitioners is that though the 2 order passed by the Collector was passed at their instance, the State Government did not gave any notice of hearing to them. Ms. Cardozo to take instructions from the concerned Officer of the State Government and the original record and the proceedings shall be kept available for inspection to find out the correctness or otherwise of this contention. 3 To be listed for passing further orders under the caption 'for orders' and to be placed 'High on Board' on 24th February, 2012.” - 3 - 904-wp-880-881-2012 5 Today the original record of the Appeals before the State Government is produced in Court. The learned AGP Ms. Cardozo has verified the original record. On instructions from Shri H. V. Parhate, Desk Officer, Revenue & Forest Department of the Government of Maharashtra, she makes a statement that though in the Appeal Memo filed by Respondent No.1 in the respective Petitions, the Petitioners were impleaded as Respondents, no notice was issued by the Hon'ble Minister for State to the said Respondents in the Appeals before passing the impugned orders. She fairly admitted that the orders which were challenged in the Appeal which were passed by the District Collector, Thane were passed on the complaint of the present Petitioners and hence in the Appeals it was necessary to issue notices to the Petitioners. 6 The Respondent No.1 in both the Appeals had rightly impleaded the Petitioners herein as party-Respondent in the Appeal. However, it is surprising that the Hon'ble Minister for State has proceeded to hear and decide the Appeal without issuing any notice to the party – Respondent in the Appeal. The only explanation which is offered by Ms. Cardozo is that this was an inadvertent mistake and through over sight this mistake had occurred. 7 It is thus clear that the impugned orders are passed in clear breach of Rules of natural justice and only on that ground, impugned - 4 - 904-wp-880-881-2012 orders are liable to be quashed and set aside, since they had been passed without hearing the Petitioners who were necessary parties. The impugned Judgment and Order dated 27th September, 2011 passed by the Hon’ble Minister for Revenue are quashed and set aside. It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the controversy involved in the Appeals. 8 As a logical sequator of setting aside of the impugned orders, the logical corollary is that the orders of the Collector passed on 7th November, 2009 which were impugned in the Appeals filed before the State Government must revive. However, the impugned orders are passed on 27th September, 2011 and these Petitions were filed in the month of January, 2012. Hence, as and by way of indulgence, the status-quo regarding mining operations as appearing as on today will be maintained for a period of two weeks. This order is being passed on the specific request of the Advocate for Respondent No.1 in respective Petitions and as and by way of indulgence, so as to enable them to move the State Government for considering the said applications filed by them in their respective Appeals. It is made clear that if they move before the State Government for considering the interim relief as prayed in Memo of Appeals filed by them respectively, if such a request is made, the State Government will consider said requests preferably within two weeks from - 5 - 904-wp-880-881-2012 today, but will consider the requests only after granting an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners who are impleaded as Respondent in the Appeal. 9 Since the Hon'ble Minister of State for Revenue who had passed the earlier orders, had committed a glaring error by allowing Appeals, even without issuing notice to the Respondent in the Appeal, I deem it fit and necessary to direct that now the Appeals and the prayers for stay in the Appeal will be heard and considered by the Hon'ble Minister of Revenue i.e. Cabinet Minister himself. This order may not be construed to be an order passing any strictures against Hon'ble Minister for State. 10 While considering the applications for stay, the Hon'ble Cabinet Minister of Revenue, apart from hearing the Petitioners herein above, will also take into consideration such material as may be placed before the Hon'ble Minister by the respective parties including any judicial orders, if operating in the filed and then pass an appropriate order on the stay application. The Petitioners and Respondent No.1 will appear before the Hon’ble Cabinet Minister on 1st March, 2012 along with authenticated copy of this order at 3.00 p.m. and there upon the Hon’ble Cabinet Minister can fix the suitable date of hearing for prayer for stay preferably on or before 7th March, 2012 and dispose off the prayer for stay on or - 6 - 904-wp-880-881-2012 before 9th March, 2012. 11 Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (G.S.GODBOLE,J.)