Chandrakant Bajirao Desale And Others v. Vaishali Dyaneshwar Patil And Another

{1} drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3295 OF 2016 1.

Chandrakant Bajirao Desale PETITIONERS Age - 39 years, Occ - Service 2.

Rajendra Pundlik Patil, Age - 50 years, Occ - Agriculture 3.

Digambar Bhoju Patil, Age - 65 years, Occ - Agriculture 4.

Gangubai Krushna Gopal, Age - 45 years, Occ - Househwife All r/o Navalnagar, Taluka and District - Dhule

VERSUS

1.

Vaishali Dyaneshwar Patil RESPONDENTS Age - 28 years, Occ - R/o Navalnagar, Taluka and District - Dhule 2.

The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Dhule, District - Dhule .......

Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for respondent-State Mr. P. B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1 .......

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] DATE : 18 th JULY, 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with

{2} consent of learned advocates for the parties. 2.

Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently submits that the impugned order is terse and a non speaking order, upon a request made under an application to allow them to cross-examine Deputy Chief Executive Officer, (Village Panchayat), Zilla Parisahd, Dhule who has given report dated 5th October, 2015.

3.

It is submitted that there are two conflicting reports, one in favour of the petitioners and the other against them. In the circumstances, according to learned advocate, since both the inquiries have been conducted on the orders of the concerned authority, cross-examination has been necessitated. 4.

Though learned AGP and Mr. Patil, learned advocate for respondents, have their reservations, yet they are not in a position to dispute that the order is a non speaking order nor there appears any consideration of the reasons for which crossexamination of the person being asked. 5.

In view of aforesaid, it is deemed appropriate that application dated 14th October, 2015 of the petitioners be appropriately considered by the concerned authority in

{3} accordance with facts and law.

6.

Accordingly, impugned order dated 14th October, 2015 is set aside. The application upon which impugned order has been passed stands restored for being heard in accordance with facts and law and decided afresh. Said exercise be carried out by the concerned authority as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order.

7.

Writ petition as such, stands allowed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] drp/wp3295-16