Bombay High Court
Manoharlal Kewalramani vs Sub Divisional Officer Office Of ... on 11 February, 2020
Author: C. V. Bhadang
Bench: C. V. Bhadang
19.8 - WPST. 1520-2020
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (St.) No. 1520 OF 2020
Manoharlal Kewalramani ... Petitioner
Vs.
Sub-Divisional Officer,
Office of the Administrator, Ulhasnagar & Anr. ... Respondents
***
Ms. Minal J. Chandnani, for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. R. Metkari, AGP for Respondents.
***
CORAM : C. V. BHADANG, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 11, 2020
PC :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned AGP
waives notice on behalf of the Respondents. Heard finally, by consent
of parties.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the communication /
order dated 6th January, 2020 passed by the Administrator cum Sub-
Divisional Officer, Ulhasnagar. By the impugned communication, the
Respondent has refused to entertain the application, inter alia, on the
ground that the same is received after the repeal of the Displaced
Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.
3. The only contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is
that the said order has been passed without hearing him. The learned
1 / 3
19.8 - WPST. 1520-2020
counsel for the Petitioner points out that had the Petitioner been heard,
he would have been in a position to point out to the authority about the
powers to entertain the application filed by the Petitioner under the
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.
4. The learned AGP has pointed that all that impugned
communication directs the Petitioner is to approach the competent
authority. On behalf of the Respondents, reliance is placed on a
notification dated 27th November, 2017, which is under S. 6(1) of the
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. He also submits that
the Petitioner has an alternate remedy of an appeal under S. 22 of the
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954,
which the Petitioner has not availed of. The learned AGP, on
instructions, submits that the application is filed prior to the cut off
date i.e. 5th September, 2005.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that
in a group of similar petitions, being Writ Petition No. 8381 of 2019,
this Court (Coram : Ujjal Bhuyan, J.) by judgment and order dated 16 th
October, 2019 and others, has remitted the matters back for deciding
the application afresh after hearing the Petitioner/s. Normally,
availability of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar, particularly
when it is found that the impugned order is passed without hearing the
2 / 3
19.8 - WPST. 1520-2020
party concerned, which is in breach of principles of natural justice. In
view of the fact that in similar matters, this Court (Coram : Ujjal
Bhuyan, J.) has found it fit to remit the matters back, I do not find that
it would be appropriate to take a different view. Needless to mention
that it will be open to the first Respondent to pass an appropriate order
on its own merits, and in accordance with law, after hearing the
Petitioner. In the result, following order is passed.
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order is hereby set aside.
(iii) The application filed by the Petitioner is remitted back to the first Respondent for deciding it afresh after hearing the Petitioner, on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt hereof.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
Vinayak Digitally signed
by Vinayak P.
Sd/-
P. Halemath C. V. BHADANG, J.
Date: 2020.02.17
Halemath 17:26:36 +0530
3 / 3