Bombay High Court
Nisar Ahmed Khan Proprietor N A Khan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anothers on 23 November, 2016
Author: S. V.Gangapurwala
Bench: S. V. Gangapurwala
wp11523-15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11523 OF 2015
Nisar Ahmed Khan, ... Petitioner
Proprietor, N.A. Khan Transport
Contractor,
Age 53 years, Occu: Business,
R/o 6/P, Opp. Railway
Maldhakka, Silk Mills Colony,
aurangabad.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary for Co-
operation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Chairman and Managing Director, ... Respondents.
Maharashtra State Warehousing
Corporation, 583/B, Cultekdi
Market Yard, Pune 411 037
(Public Undertaking listed in
Maharashtra )
Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. A. V. Hon,
Advocate for the petitioner,
Mr. A.A. Jagatkar, AGP, for Respondent No.1,
Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate h/for Mr.N. B.Suryawanshi,
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 27th October, 2016
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd November, 2016.
JUDGMENT (Per S. V.Gangapurwala, J):
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With 1/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 ::: wp11523-15.odt consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal
3. The order dated 09.4.2015 passed by respondent No.2 Corporation thereby prohibiting the petitioner from filling in tenders of the Respondent Corporation for one year and keeping in abeyance the amount of Rs.39,52,698/- payable to the petitioner so also keeping the right reserved to recover the amount of Rs.53,03,759/- is assailed in the present petition.
4. Mr. Hon, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner strenuously contends that the petitioner is carrying the transport business and since 10 years, is doing the work for the respondents. According to the learned Senior Advocate, the petitioner was awarded a contract for transportation of food grains of the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation from Rake Point Aurangabad to Jadhavwadi Godown, New Mondha, Aurangabad and godowon at Gat No.57, Satara Parisar, Aurangabad for a period from 01.09.2010 to 31.08.2012.
Subsequently, the petitioner was also asked to transport the food grains beyond the contract period, thereby extending the contract period vide extension orders dated 27.08.2012, 27.09.2012.
2/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 :::wp11523-15.odt
5. The learned Senior Advocate submits that prior to the impugned order being passed, earlier also, the order of similar nature, blacklisting the petitioner was passed; which order was set aside by this Court in writ Petition bearing No.3946/2013. The Court directed the respondents to observe the principles of natural justice. Thereafter again show cause notice was issued, which was duly replied and the impugned order came to be passed.
6. According to the learned Senior Advocate, the allegation of the respondents that the food grain i.e. wheat was mixed with DAP fertilizers at the railway premises after unloading the same is erroneous and against the record. The petitioner has given explanation that the wheat and DAP fertilizers were already mixed up in the Rake. Wheat and DAP Fertilizers were put in the same wagon. The same was mixed up in the wagon itself, for which the petitioner is not responsible. The Authority of respondent No.2 Corporation called for the report from the Officials of Food Corporation of India (FCI). In the said enquiry also, the petitioner was not held responsible for the admixture of DAP Fertilizers, cement and wheat. The 3/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 ::: wp11523-15.odt learned Senior Advocate relies on the reports submitted by the ICCS, FCI, Manmad alognwith the telegram sent to the Deputy Manager, FCI, Dhan, District Kurukshetra.
7. The learned Senior Advocate relies on the various communications and correspondence to submit that the negligence was on the part of the FCI at loading point, due to which, DAP fertilizers and wheat was put in the same rake i.e railway wagon. According to the learned Senior Advocate, during the period of contract which was for more than two and half years, not a single notice was received by the petitioner about unsatisfactory work. On the contrary, the petitioner was given extension for almost six months after the expiry of contract. The learned senior Advocate further submits that the gunny bags containing wheat and cement bags/fertilizer bags were torn and at the same time were open i.e. without tag and admixture is a result of the same in the wagon itself.
The petitioner unloaded the same with due care and caution. The petitioner himself reported about the admixture of wheat and fertilizers and/or cement to the Representatives of Respondent No.2 Corporation as well as FCI from time to time and Panchanamas were also 4/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 ::: wp11523-15.odt prepared on 06.02.2012 and 07.02.2012 in the presence of Mathadi workers. It is the petitioner who had requested for taking care so that the food grain is not mixed with fertilizers or cement. The petitioner received more letters on 2nd March, 2012 and 9th March, 2012, calling upon the petitioner to unload the rake, failing which the petitioner would be liable for penal action, including demurrage and wharfage. The petitioner replied the said letters stating that in the months of January, February, March, 2012, the food grain was received, which was already mixed with fertilizers and cement in the rake itself.
8. According to the learned senior Advocate as there was no place for unloading the wheat at the platform of the railway goods shed, the petitioner was required to pay demurrage of Rs.5 lakhs in addition to shunting charges. The Senior Manager (Business Development) of respondent No.2, on 19.4.2012 also submitted a report that the stocks which were received were mixed with fertilizers/cement in uncleaned wagon.
No proper dunnage was placed underneath in the wagon which caused food grain to mix with cement /fertilizers. Even the bags were not properly sealed, 5/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 ::: wp11523-15.odt and were loosely stitched. The learned Senior Advocate refers to various correspondence to show that the admixture was in the rake itself and that there was no place for unloading of food grains from rakes at Aurangabad railway goods shed as a result, food grain, fertilizers and cement cement were mixed up. According to the learned Senior Advocate, the Senior Railway Manager of respondent No.2 Corporation at Aurangabad informed to the Senior Divisional Operation Manager, South Central Railway Nanded that huge stock of fertilizers and cement was dump on both tracks at unloading point, as a result, there was no space for unloading or taking direct delivery from wagon to truck. The Senior Railway Manager therefore requested not to place food grain rakes until availability of clear and vacant platform in order to avoid chances of mixing fertilizers with food grains.
9. The learned Senior Advocate further submits that the petitioner is not at fault. Even a star question was raised in the State Legislature and the reply given was that all the bags were received in hand stitched condition and the stitching was also not as per norms. FCI wagons are not cleaned before loading due 6/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 ::: wp11523-15.odt to which wagon palla mixed with cement and fertilizer and other material at bottom side. The texture of gunnies was also very poor and bust condition. The fault was of the FCI still, the petitioner is being made a scape goat and liable.
10. The learned senior Advocate submits that the officials of the FCI did not hold the petitioner responsible for admixture of DAP fertilizers, cement and other materials. The action of restraining the petitioner from participating in tender process for one year is erroneous. According to the learned Senior Advocate, even after the expiry of contract on 31 st August, 2012, the petitioner was granted extension of contract of transportation five times for six months.
If the petitioner would have been found negligent, extension would not have been granted. The joint committee report relied by the respondent while passing the impugned order itself contains an admission that the complaint is lodged with the Area Manager of FCI Manmad on 12.7.2012 after lapse of six months. The same is not in accordance with the procedure. The allegation of negligence against the petitioner cannot be accepted also on the ground that the contract of 7/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 ::: wp11523-15.odt handling and transportation of food grains allotted to the petitioner was not terminated/cancelled for breach of the terms and conditions of the contract. On the contrary, extension was given. The petitioner is not, by any stretch, responsible for the alleged contamination of the goods.
11. The learned Senior Advocate further submits that the unloading and shifting has been done under the strict supervision of ICCS who had deputed the Area Manager, FCI, Manmad and MSWC Officials. The report is sent by the Storage Superintendent, Warehousing Corporation to the Depot Manager, FCI and in the said report no allegation is made against the petitioner with regard to contamination of food grains. According to the learned Senior Advocate the petitioner is in the business of transportation of goods for last 37 years and since 10 years he is executing contracts with the Warehousing Corporation. Even certificates are issued that the petitioner is doing the said work and the performance in professional capacity and also reliability in execution of the work is good. Even the complaint filed against the petitioner under the provisions of the Food Protection Act, 2006 is 8/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 ::: wp11523-15.odt dismissed, thereby establishing that the petitioner is, by no stretch, responsible for the alleged contamination of goods.
12. The learned Senior Advocate further submits that as far as Mathdi Workers' payment is concerned, there cannot be any dispute about the same as the petitioner is responsible to pay the charges as was decided at the time of the contract and the petitioner has paid the same. Explanation has been given by the petitioner in that regard that revision of wages by the Mathadi Workers Board is unilateral. Revised rates will not be applicable to the contracts on hand, but to the fresh tenders. Moreover, the petitioner has already assailed the same by filing separate writ petition. According to learned Senior Advocate, the order impugned is illegal and cannot be sustained and deserves to be caused and set aside.
13. Mr.Kurkarni, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Corporation submits that only because the petitioner was granted extensions owing to some exigency of time and situation, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit out of the same. It was not because of excellent work of the petitioner, extension was 9/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 ::: wp11523-15.odt granted to him but since the fresh tender process, due to court matters, was to take time, the petitioner was given extension. The petitioner is trying to shift the blame on others for his own fault. The petitioner has breached the terms and conditions mentioned in the contract. It was the duty and responsibility of the petitioner to take care for the safety of goods and to unload the food grains from the rake within 9 hours and to shift them in godown. The petitioner left the goods at railway yard for 4 to 10 days in open. So also the petitioner failed to lay tarpaulin on the floor before unloading the rakes. Serious lapses were committed by the petitioner while unloading the rakes.
The petitioner did not take the precaution required as per the terms of the tender. The petitioner was repeatedly negligent and irresponsible in unloading the food grains so also the fertilizers/cement bags. The food grains which were meant for human consumption under the public distribution system were mixed with fertilizers on account of negligence of the petitioner and the action of disqualification of the petitioner, in the present situation, was inevitable. The photographs placed on record would clearly point out the negligent and irresponsible conduct of the 10/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 ::: wp11523-15.odt petitioner. The learned advocate further submits that time to time, Committees were constituted to enquir into the complaints against the petitioner in respect of mixing of fertilizer/cement with food gains. It is clear from the reports of the said Committees that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner in handling and transporting of food grains at railway yard as well as during transportation.
14. The learned counsel for the respondent has taken us through the reports of the three Enquiry Committees.
The second Committee recommended the recovery of Rs.53,03,759/-. It is sought to be recovered from the charges paid by the FCI to the respondent Corporation.
The said recovery shows negligence and lapses on the part of the petitioner. The three members committee appointed by the FCI, upon necessary enquiry and inspection, has concluded that contamination of food grains has not occurred inside wagon but it has occurred after unloading the food grains in railway shed and also the stocks shifted to warehouse took abnormal time i.e. 4 to 10 days for unloading. The amount of Rs. 53 lakhs has been deducted by the FCI from the bills of Storage charges /supervision 11/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 ::: wp11523-15.odt charges, which are to be paid by FCI to the respondent Corporation. The respondent Corporation has been held responsible for contamination of stocks by the FCI. It is because of the negligent act of the petitioner only, the said stigma is put on the respondent Corporation.
15. The learned counsel further submits that there were various complaints against the petitioner and the petitioner was intimated from time to time to improve the execution of work but to no avail. Due to negligence of the petitioner, the answering respondent has suffered huge losses and 9088 bags of food grains meant for human consumption have been damaged due to its mixing with the fertilizer and cement. It is the petitioner who is responsible for the same and hence the action of disqualification of the petitioner is justified. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Q.C. Branch and Business Development Branch so also after analyzing the joint inspection report of officers from the FCI, it is held that the petitioner has not worked in accordance with the tender conditions. It was found that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory. The petitioner was rightly disqualified by the impugned order for violating the terms and 12/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 ::: wp11523-15.odt conditions of the agreement and is responsible for commission of serious lapses.
16. The learned counsel further submits that as per the contract, the petitioner was responsible for payment of Mathadi workers as per the rates fixed by the Mathadi Board from time to time. Though the amounts were received by the petitioner from the respondent Corporation in his running bills, the same were not deposited with the Mathadi Board. Even the cheques given by the petitioner towards charges to the Mathadi Board of Rs.90 lakhs had bounced. Mathadi Board is claiming the amount now, which is required to be paid by the respondent Corporation. In fact the said amount is liable to be paid by the petitioner. The respondent was constrained to make payment to the Mathadi Board of an amount of Rs.35 lakhs which in fact the petitioner was bound to pay. The learned counsel further submits that as per order dated 19.11.2013, the Mathadi Board had ordered the petitioner and the respondent to pay Rs.78,20,119/- due towards bouncing of cheques given by the petitioner towards labour, levy amount and 10% surcharge. The contention of the petitioner that the Senior Regional 13/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 ::: wp11523-15.odt Manager had made it clear that wages fixed by the Mathadi Board shall be applicable from the date of grant of new tender is incorrect. The same is contrary to the agreement. The petitioner is rightly disqualified from the tender process for one year as per the impugned order. As the petitioner has failed to pay the amount of labour charges and levy charges, the respondent was constrained to deposit Rs.35 lakhs. As such the said amount is rightly retained. So also the respondent is directed by the FCI to deposit Rs.53,03,759/- and for the same, in the impugned order, right is reserved to claim recovery from the petitioner.
17. The learned counsel submits that no illegality has been committed while passing the impugned order. In fact, the liberal approach had been taken against the petitioner. The respondent Corporation has a right to blacklist the petitioner in case of non adherence to the contract and the same would not be open for review.
The learned counsel submits that it is for the respondent to determine the period of blacklisting and the same has to be decided by the Authority only. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex 14/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 ::: wp11523-15.odt Court in the case of M/s Kulja Industries Ltd. Vs. Chief General Manager, W.T. Proj., BSNL and others reported in AIR 2014 SC 09.
18. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
19. As far as the grievance with regard to the payment of the labour charges and levy amount to the Mathadi Board is concerned, this Court need not dwell upon the same as it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a separate writ petition with regard to the wages fixed by the Mathadi Board. The petitioner may agitate the same in the said writ petition.
20. The predominant grievance of the petitioner is with regard to blacklisting the petitioner for one year, that is restraining the petitioner from participating in tender process for one year with the respondent. The said period of one year has already lapsed. However, as per terms of the tenders that are issued by the respondent, a person who is earlier blacklisted or whose security amount is forfeited, is not entitled for participation in tender process for 15/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 ::: wp11523-15.odt further 3/5 years at the discretion of the respondent.
As such, the matter is being agitated.
21. The learned counsel for the respective parties have relied on the voluminous various correspondence and the reports submitted by the various authorities.
22. This Court would be slow to investigate or tread upon the factual disputes. We would certainly be guided by the reports placed on record. The Apex Court, in case of M/s Kulja Industries Ltd., referred to supra, has held that the power to blacklist a contractor where the contract be for supply of material or equipment or for the execution of any other work whatsoever is inherent in the party allotting the contract. There is no need for any such power being specifically conferred by Statute or reserved by contractor. The Apex Court, in the said judgment has also observed that the writ court can examine as to whether the order is reasonable, fair and proportionate to the gravity of the offence/act complained.
23. In the present case, the petitioner is not accused of any fraud, misappropriation or forgery. The allegation against the petitioner is of negligence, 16/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 ::: wp11523-15.odt irresponsible conduct, because of which, according to the respondents, loss is sustained and about 9088 bags of wheat are contaminated as they were mixed with fertilizers/cement.
24. There are contrary reports on record. The disputed period appears to be from January to March, 2012. Report dated 30th January, 2012 by the Storage Superintendent, Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation, Jadhavwadi, Aurangabad and Manager, F.C.I. Manmad shows that the bags were received, the stocks were unloaded and shifted under the strict supervision of ICCS deputed by the Area Manager, FCI, Manmad. It states that dunange is not used in wagon. Hand stitched bags are not as per norms. ICCS reports state that the gunny texture of the goods unloaded from 26.01.2012 to 30th January, 2012 is found very weak and poor. Hand stitched bags are not properly stitched. Stitching is not up to the mark. Loose spillage is found scattered in each wagon. ICCS report with regard to the unloading from 03.02.2012 to 14.02.2012 states that the stitching of bags are not as per norms, wagons are not cleaned before loading, due to which wagon pallas mixed with cement and fertilizers and other materials at the 17/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 ::: wp11523-15.odt bottom side. Dunnage also is not used in any wagons so also textures of gunny is also very very poor and bust condition. Various reports of ICCS are on the same lines.
25. Report dated 18.10.2012 signed by the Assistant general Manager (QC), F.C.I. Manmad reads as under
(Page 416):
"Conclusion:
1) While going through enclosed ICCS Report i.e. D to G, in which it is clearly mention that wagons are not cleaned before the loading. But it is not clear that fertilizer contamination took place in wagon except the ICCS Report Annexure 'E'.
So it can be presumed that the contamination might have been taken place at the time of wagon unloading due to non use of tarpaulins at the time of unloading at rail head.
2) No certificate obtained by MSWC authority from railway i.e. wagons are contaminated.
3) MSWC authority not lodged consigner claim within stipulation time for fertilizer contaminated stock.
18/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 :::wp11523-15.odt
4) If contamination occurred in wagon or at rail head no separated bags stacked by MSWC at the time of receipt.
5) As per their records it shows that, MSWC authority stacked bags and unclean rail head palla in mixed condition and stock issued out to state Govt. without segregation and invited complaint.
6) After words they segregated the unclean RHP bags from the stacks and kept in eight stacks in different godowns. In primaphacy, it seems that due to negligence of consignor and consignee during loading/ unloading, the stock become contaminated and thereby spoil the image of corporation."
The fact finding committees were appointed by the respondents. Fact finding report of three members Committee is signed by the Assistant General Manager (Q), FCI, Manmad, Assistant General Maager (Genl) FCI, RO, Mumbai and Area Manager, FCI, Manmad, Camp Aurangabad. Report reads as under (Pages 419-420):
"CONCLUSION :
1. Considering the photograph, the contamination of food grain is not occurred inside the wagons, but it occurs after the unloading the food grain in railhead and also shifted to warehouse it takes abnormal days i.e. from 4 to 9 days after unloading.19/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 :::
wp11523-15.odt
2. Despite of instruction by DSO Aurangabad not to issue the stock from godown No.5,7 and 10 to PDS. MSWC authorities issue the stock to PDS and invited repeated complaints.
3. After intimated said matter by way of quality complaint, the AGM(QC),DO, Manmad advised the Warehouse Manager to refer the sample to FCI. DO Manmad but the Warehouse Manager did not refer the sample to DO Manmad.
4. Without Knowledge of FCI, so moto referred the samples to Public Health Laboratory, Aurangabad which was unwarranted."
Another report, signed by 8 members committee concluded as under (pages 425-426):
"CONCLUSION:
Looking to the records of local MSWC and reports of DSO, Aurangabad, AGM(QC),FCI Manmad, PFA Authority and FCI nominated committee, the Joint Committee of officers of FCI and MSWC after considering all the facts and figures of the records hereby infers that:
1. As per the correspondence made by the local MSWC authority, number of cement / fertilizer were unloaded at Aurangabad goods shed therefore the contamination of food grains has 20/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 ::: wp11523-15.odt occurred at Railway Goods shed Aurangabad as well as due to mixing of wagon palla with cement / fertilizer residue in uncleaned wagons of two rakes received Ex-Malanpur(MP).
2. It is a fact that only two rakes received with uncleaned wagons with cement / fertilizers and reported 2515 RHP bags, whereas the declared number of contaminated bags are 9040 bags which were stacked in the sound stack noticed at the time of issue under PDS.
3. No proper complaint has been found in the records of the MSWC with the consignor within stipulated time in accordance with the procedure in vogue regarding contamination of stocks.
4. In view of the correspondence made by local MSWC with railways, Collector/DSO regarding position of Aurangabad Goods shed, it is clear that the contamination has occurred at Aurangabad Goods shed only while filling palla and collecting sweepages in the cut and torn, mouth open bags, the same were not kept separately rather this contaminated stock has been physically issued to the PDS ignoring the facts that they were chemically contaminated with fertilizer.21/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 :::
wp11523-15.odt
5. The losses on account of mismanagement at local level as well as no timely communication to the concerned authority by MSWC resulted in the huge accumulation of contaminated bags.
6. Since few bags have been noticed with machine stitched, such bags can be segregated,sampled after obtaining permission from concerned PFA authorities by MSWC authority prior to disposal as also shall ensure proper QC treatments to avoid any kind of further deterioration in the quality till its disposal.
7. On completion of the above formalities the stocks in question can be disposed off as per FCI procedure for contamination of food grain stocks.
26. Going through the said conclusions recorded by the fact finding committees so also the ICCS reports, it is clear that the fault lay on either side. The ICCS report clearly implies negligence at the time of loading the goods in rake i.e. wheat, fertilizers and cements were loaded in the same wagon. Texture of the gunny bags was not proper. Stitching was not proper, wagons were not clean and the admixture has taken 22/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 ::: wp11523-15.odt place at the bottom side in the wagon. As per report of the fact finding committees also version is that the contamination of the food grain has occurred at the railway shed Aurangabad as well as due to mixing of wagaon palla with cement/fertilizers, residue in unclean wagon at two rakes.
27. This Court would have its own limitation of sitting over the report of the fact finding committees so also the ICCS report. Reports throw light on the negligence at the time of loading so also at the time of unloading and storage. This Court certainly need not tread upon the said reports. The fact is that negligence is attributed even at the time of loading for which the petitioner is not responsible and also negligence is attributed to the petitioner after unloading. Considering the fact that for the period of more than one year, the petitioner has suffered the order of being restrained and prohibited from participating in tender process and that the petitioner is not wholly responsible for the admixture of the food-grains with fertilizers/cement, we set aside the order of blacklisting the petitioner.
28. As far as recovery of the amount is concerned, 23/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 ::: wp11523-15.odt no conclusion has been arrived at by the respondents while passing the impugned order. There is no order forfeiting the security deposit. The order only states that some amount is retained and right is reserved for claiming the amount, however, no definite finding has been arrived at by the authority in that regard. It is open for the Authorities to take decision upon the same after hearing the petitioner on the said aspect. As far as Mathadi charges are concerned, we have already opined that same would be left to be agitated by the petitioner in the proceeding which he has already initiated.
29. Rule is accordingly made partly absolute. No costs.
(K. L. WADANE, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) JPC 24/24 ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2016 00:15:09 :::