Bombay High Court
Puranchand Kaluram Rajput vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 22 February, 2021
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
Pvr. CAW-5-2021-wp2006-09.doc
Digitally
signed by
Prashant
Prashant V.
Rane IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V. Rane Date:
2021.02.23
18:27:14
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
+0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 2006 OF 2009
with
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5 of 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2006 of 2009
Puranchand Kaluram Rajput ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
---
Mr. S.N. Gawade i/b. M/s. Ram & Co. for the applicant.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Govt. Pleader a/w. Smt. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the
State.
----
CORAM :- G. S. KULKARNI, J.
(IN CHAMBER AT 2.15 p.m.) DATE :- FEBRUARY 22, 2021 PC :-
1. On the backdrop of the earlier order, the petition was called out today for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 5 February 2021. This Court on 15 February 2021 had passed the following order:-
1. This petition was disposed of by an order dated 5 February 2021 passed by this Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has moved a praecipe for speaking to the minutes of the order. He contends that there is an order dated 5 February 2009 passed by this Court (Mr.Justice V.C.Daga, as His Lordship then was). The said order reads thus:-
"P.C. Notice before admission.Page 1 of 4
Pvr. CAW-5-2021-wp2006-09.doc Returnable after two weeks.
Learned AGP waives service.
Hamdast allowed. Service by RPAD is also permitted.
In the meanwhile the order dated 02/01/2009 passed by this Court in WP 8406/2008 stands extended till returnable date.
Sd/-"
2. A perusal of the record indicates that there is no such order as signed by Mr.Justice V.C.Daga, however, it appears that sans such an order there is office noting.
3. Learned Registrar (Judicial) shall examine this position and place a report on record as to whether any order as noted above, was passed by the Court on 5 February 2009. To enable the Registrar (Judicial) to place such report on record, stand over to 22 February 2021."
2. Accordingly, the office has placed before the Court a report of Mr.V.R.Kachare, Registrar (Judicial-I) dated 18 December 2021. The relevant contents of the report reads thus:
" Upon verification of Civil Writ Petition No.2006 of 2009. It is noticed that order dated 5th February 2009 was written and signed by the then Associate attached to the Hon'ble Court of Hon'ble Shri.Justice V.C.Daga as P.C. (Per Court). No order signed by the Hon'ble Shri.Justice V.C.Daga is found in the matter."
3. It therefore appears to be clear that there is no order dated 5 February 2009 passed by the Court granting any protection to the petitioner, and such order was only a office note which was signed by the Sheristedar of the Court. As to how such note was made by the Sheristedar without the supporting order of the Court signed by His Lordship is required to be looked into by the Registrar (Judicial) and Page 2 of 4 Pvr. CAW-5-2021-wp2006-09.doc appropriate inquiry needs to be conducted. The Sheristedar of the Court would not have any authority for making any note on the office- sheet resembling any order of the Court. This had serious consequences and needs to be diligently considered and examined by the Registrar (Judicial) and an appropriate action to be taken in consultation with the Registrar General.
4. Be that as it may, learned Counsel for the petitioner has sought a limited clarification in regard to the observations of the Court in paragraph 5 of the order dated 5 February 2021. The Court in the said paragraph observed as under:-
"5. On the above backdrop, today, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem to state that as of now, the law bars any such activity of the nature as declined to the petitioner by the impugned order. In this view of the matter, even otherwise nothing survived in the petition. Nothing would survive in the Civil Application as well."
5. The learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr.Kakade, learned Government Pleader state that in fact the correct position is that, what was barred by the State Government was the activity of 'a dance bar' and not of an Orchestra. They state that paragraphs (5) hence be corrected so as to record a statement only in regard to a ban on dance bar activity and not in regard to orchestra. In view of such consensus, paragraph 5 of the said order is recalled and is substituted by the following paragraph:-
"5. On the above backdrop, today, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem to state that as of now, the law bars activity of a dance bar. The petition as it stands abated, there was no interim order whatsoever for more than 11 years. All contentions of the petitioner in regard to any permissible activity, are expressly kept open. Nothing would survive in the Civil Application as well."Page 3 of 4
Pvr. CAW-5-2021-wp2006-09.doc 6. The above modified paragraph 5 be accordingly
incorporated in the order dated 5 February 2021, the order be corrected accordingly and made available to the parties. All contentions in regard to any permissible activity, are expressly kept open.
7. Praecipe for speaking to the minutes of the order is accordingly disposed of.
(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Page 4 of 4