RAVINDRA v. GHUGEAND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ
Legal Reasoning
2786.24ca(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 906 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2786 OF 2024 IN WP/112/2021SUNIL VITTHALRAO YADAVVERSUSRAM DNYANOBA BASTAPURE AND OTHERS ….Mr S. S. Thombre, Advocate for Applicant;Mr T. M. Venjane, Advocate for Respondent No.1Ms Neha Kamble, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2/StateMr A. N. Patale, Advocate for Respondent No.3Mr V. D. Gunale, Advocate for Respondent No.4 CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGEAND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 10th July, 2024PER COURT:1.By this Civil Application, the Applicant, namely, Shri.Sunil Vitthalrao Yadav, who has superannuated as an ‘AdditionalCollector’, prays for recalling certain observations made by thisCourt, vide the order dated 12/02/2024, passed in Writ PetitionNo.112/2021. The Applicant has filed an affidavit dated26/06/2024, which is taken on record and marked as ‘X-1’ foridentification.
Legal Reasoning
2786.24ca(2) 2.The learned Advocate Shri. V. D. Gunale, submits thatRespondent No.3 in the original Writ Petition Shri. SuryakantVitthal Shelke (Respondent No.4 in this Civil Application), hadapproached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a Special LeavePetition (Civ.) Diary No. 10236/2024. By an order dated06/05/2024, the said Special Leave Petition has been dismissed,since the Petitioner/Suryakant prayed for leave to challenge theoriginal order dated 12/10/2020, passed by the present ApplicantShri. Sunil Vitthalrao Yadav (the then Sub Divisional Officer,Latur). Such liberty was granted. No Writ Petition has been fileduntil today.3.We have heard the learned Advocates for theApplicant and the Original appearing parties in the Writ Petition.Since our order dated 12/02/2024, is sought to be reviewed to theextent of certain observations against the present Applicant, itwould be apposite to reproduce paragraph Nos.5 to 11hereunder :- 2786.24ca(3) “5. We are not convinced by the contention of RespondentNo.3 that the application seeking review can be consideredunder Section 3-I(b). There is no power of review vested inthe Second Respondent. It is a crystallized position of lawthat an order on a review application can passed only if thestatute provides or vests power in a particular authority toreview it's order. The contention of Respondent No. 2 is thatthere was an understanding between Respondent No.3 andthe Petitioner. The Petitioner vehemently refutes the saidstatement.6. Be that as it may, merely because two parties maycome hand in hand before an authority and seek review ofan order without the statute vesting any power in thatauthority to pass an order on a review application, consentof the parties would not create jurisdiction in the SecondRespondent. When matters involve disbursement of money,the statutory authorities have to be extremely careful,diligent and vigilant. We strongly disapprove of the conductof Respondent No.2 and this is a fit case to direct theDistrict Collector to initiate disciplinary proceedingsagainst the said officer, namely Shri Sunil Yadav. Thelearned Standing Counsel for the Union of Indiarepresenting Respondent No.2, submits that this is the firstreported case wherein the said authority has passed such anorder.7. This Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated16.12.2020 is quashed and set aside and the reviewapplication filed by Respondent no.3, stands dismissed.8. Since the Third Respondent has given an undertakingto Respondent No.2 to refund the amount if there is anyorder of any authority or the Court, we direct Respondent 2786.24ca(4) No.3 to re-deposit the entire amount with Respondent No.2within a period of three weeks from today, failing which thesaid amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from18.12.2020, when the amount was released by the SecondRespondent within 48 hours of the passing of the order.After the amount is deposited, the entire amount shallimmediately be forwarded by Respondent no.2, to the CivilCourt of original jurisdiction in tune with the order dated12.10.2020 passed under Section 3-H(4).9. Though the Standing counsel has requested us not toissue a direction for initiating disciplinary proceedingsagainst the Second Respondent since he has now beentransferred, we find the following factors to be glaring:-A) On 12.10.2020, the Second Respondent passesan order under section 3-H(4), referring the dispute tothe Civil Court.B) The total amount of Rs.1,99,28,739/- wassupposed to be transmitted to the Civil Court,expeditiously. The Second Respondent retained theamount for 41 days, despite passing the orderreferring the dispute to the Civil Court and aftersigning it.C) Thereafter, Respondent No.3 filed a reviewapplication on 23.11.2020. An order on the reviewapplication is passed on 16.12.2020 and within 48hours, an amount of Rs.1,86,68,228/- is disbursed toRespondent No.3, by taking an undertaking.10.As such, on the one hand, the Second Respondent does not transfer the amount to the Civil Court for 41 days
Decision
2786.24ca(5) and, on the other hand, disburses a huge sum of Rs.1,86,68,228/- to Respondent No.3, within 48 hours. We, therefore, direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra not to allot any matter with regard to land acquisition and payment of compensation under any statute,to Respondent No.2 namely Sunil Yadav.11.We direct the learned Registrar Judicial of this Court,to officially place a copy of this order before the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra for compliance. A compliance report from the office of the Chief Secretary shall be placed before us on 11th March, 2024.”4.The learned Advocate for the Applicant fairly submitsthat the Applicant did not have any power to review his ownorder. He further draws our attention to paragraph No.2 of hisApplication, stating therein that, he has sincere regret and deepremorse for the error committed in discharging his official duties.He further submits that, unknowingly, he passed the questionableorder, reviewing his earlier order and disbursed the money. 5.As recorded in paragraph No.9 of our order dated12/02/2024, when there is no power to review an order, noauthority would vest in Officer to review the order even if the 2786.24ca(6) parties allegedly consent to the same and appear hand in handbefore such authority.6.It is noteworthy that the Applicant had passed an orderdated 12/10/2020, under Section 3-H(4), referring the dispute tothe Civil Court with original jurisdiction, since he noticed adispute between the parties. The amount of Rs.1,99,28,739/- wassupposed to be deposited with the Civil Court. For 41 days, theApplicant did not part with the money, purportedly for the reasonemerging from a communication addressed by him to the CivilCourt, dated 29/10/2020, copy of which tendered across the barand which is marked as ‘X-2’ for identification. The Applicanthad written to the District and Sessions Judge, Latur, requestingfor guidance as regards the procedure by which, the amount canbe transferred to the said Civil Court with original jurisdiction. Itis, thereafter, that Suryakant (Respondent No.4 herein), filed aReview Application on 23/11/2020 and the present Applicantreviewed his order on 16/12/2020 and handed overRs.1,86,68,228/- to Suryakant, by taking an undertaking. 2786.24ca(7) 7.Shri. Venjane, the learned Advocate for the Petitionerin the Writ Petition, submits that the ground for review is legallynon-existent in the light of Lily Thomas and others Vs. Union ofIndia and others, (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 224; S.Madhusudan Reddy Vs. V. Narayana Reddy and others, 2022LiveLaw (SC) 685 : 2022 SCC Online SC 1034 and PanchamLal Pandey Vs. Neeraj Kumar Mishra and others, 2023 SCCOnline SC 143 : AIR 2023 SC 948. Moreover, he submits thatthe original Petitioner, namely, Ram Dnyanoba Bastapure hadvehemently opposed the Review Petition by filing a writtenobjection and the Applicant Shri. Sunil Vitthalrao Yadav has madean incorrect recording in the order that, Ram Dnyanoba Bastapurehad orally consented to the review, though he had objected in thewritten statement. Shri. Venjane, therefore, submits that, theconduct of Sunil Vitthalrao Yadav is further aggravated by this actof making a dishonest recording and, hence, the Applicationdeserves to be rejected. 8.We are of the view that the request of the Applicantcould be considered sympathetically, only for the reason that, he 2786.24ca(8) has superannuated, and he has stated in his affidavit dated26/06/2024 (X-1), as well as in the Civil Application, that he ispraying for mercy with folded his hands. 9.Shri. Thombre, the learned Advocate representing theApplicant, submits on instructions from the Applicant who ispresent in the Court, that, to show his bona fides and to expresshis remorse and regret, he is willing to deposit Rs.50,000/- in thisCourt, to be utilized for any noble cause. He further submits thatthe Applicant has never been issued with any show cause notice orcharge-sheet, much less, suffered any disciplinary proceeding anytime in his service career. He, therefore, has urged us to showmagnanimity and pardon the Applicant, now that he hassuperannuated and who has expressed his remorse and regretunequivocally in application, as well as in the affidavit. 10.On this contention, the learned Advocate Shri.Venjane representing the original Petitioner submits that, as thePetitioner is a 76 years old citizen, who is still waiting for thecompensation amount, att least Rs. 25,000/- from the cost amount,be given to him by way of compensation. 2786.24ca(9) 11.It is in the light of the above statements, that we aretaking a sympathetic view and we are recalling only the directionissued to the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra toinitiate disciplinary proceeding against Applicant Shri. SunilVitthalrao Yadav, set out in our order dated 12/02/2024. ThisCivil Application is partly allowed, only to this extent, thoughwe maintain the observations in paragraph 6 that, this would havebeen a fit case for initiating the disciplinary proceeding againstthe said Applicant. We call upon the Chief Secretary to drop thedisciplinary proceedings since they have been initiated pursuant tothe order of this Court after the superannuation of the Applicant. 12.This Civil Application is disposed off in the aboveterms. The statement of the Applicant that he will depositRs.50,000/- in this Court, is accepted. The amount will bedeposited on or before 31/07/2024, in the Registry of this Court.The original Petitioner Shri. Ram Dnyanoba Bastapure ispermitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.25,000/- underidentification of his learned Advocate. The remainder amount bedonated to an Orphanage Home i.e. “Shantivan”, Arvi, Tq. Shirur 2786.24ca(10) Kasar, District Beed. (Bank Details:- “Bhavani Vidhyarthi KalyanPratishthan, Arvi”, State Bank of India, Branch Shirur (Kasar),Account No.33446000963, IFSC Code : SBIN0005995)13.Consequentially, if the retiral benefits of the Applicantare due and pending, the concerned Authorities are at liberty toinitiate appropriate steps.14.If the amount as stated above is not deposited by theApplicant Sunil Vitthalrao Yadav, this order shall stand re-called.The Employer/Department of the Applicant would first verify thecompliance of this order, and thereafter proceed to clear his retiraldues. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)sjk