Shri. Siddharth H. Shirodkar. v. State Of Goa, Through The Chief Secretary And ANR.

1 WP575-16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO. 575/2016 Siddharth H. Shirodkar, son of Hanumant Shirodkar, major of age, India National, r/o. H.No.321, Bhatwada, Nerul, Bardez, North Goa.

........... Petitioner.

V/s.

1) State of Goa, through the Chief Secretary, with his Office at Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa.

2) Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, 2nd floor, Sinchai Bhavan, Near Police Station, Alto, Porvorim, Goa.

........... Respondents.

Mr. Prasheen Lotlikar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D. Lawande, Government Advocate for the respondents. CORAM :- F.M. REIS & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.

Date : - 07/07/2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER F.M. REIS, J.) Heard Mr. Prasheen Lotlikar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate for the

2 WP575-16 respondents.

2.

Rule. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel.

3. Upon hearing the respective Counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner had produced a valid caste certificate disclosing that he was eligible for appointment whilst submitting his application, nevertheless, the respondents have served the petitioner with a show cause notice dated 20/05/2016 contending that the petitioner had failed to produce any valid caste certificate.

4. Mr. P. Lotlikar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in fact, the petitioner has a valid caste certificate to establish that the allegations made in the show cause notice have no substance. Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents, submits that the petitioner may produce all the material in his possession before the concerned Authority who shall examine the material and take a decision on the subject show cause notice expeditiously, in accordance with law.

5.

As the petitioner, in the present petition, only challenges the

3 WP575-16 issuance of the show cause notice, we find it appropriate to dispose of the above petition by directing the respondent No.2 to take a decision on the subject show cause notice dated 20/05/2016 as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. As such, it would not be appropriate to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made by the petitioner in the present petition. Needless to say, the petitioner is at liberty to produce additional documents, if any, in addition to the reply to the show cause notice already filed before the concerned Authority. All contentions of the parties are left open. In case any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, such order shall not be acted upon for a period of four weeks thereafter. 6.

Rule stands disposed of accordingly.

NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. F.M. REIS, J. ssm.