1 WRIT PETITION NO.7140 OF 2009 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7140 OF 2009 Shri Krishna Ganpat Sonawane : Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. : Respondents. None for the Petitioner. Smt. P S Cardoza, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3. Mr. N P Deshpande for Respondent No.2. CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 06th August 2010 P.C. 1 The above Petition has a chequered history. It was once dismissed for non-prosecution on account of the absence of the advocate on the date when the Petition was listed for admission. Thereafter it was restored and was placed for admission on 16th July 2010 when at the request of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, it was adjourned to 27th July 2010. On 27th July 2010, the learned counsel for the Petitioner sought time to place on record a copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 5th September 2000 which has not been annexed to the Petition though challenged. Hence it was adjourned to 5th August 2010. Today when the Petition is called out, none appeared for the Petitioner in the Morning Session. Hence it was passed over and kept back for the Afternoon Session. In the Afternoon Session also none appeared for the Petitioner when called. Hence we are constrained to proceed in the absence of the Counsel for the Petitioner.. 2 WRIT PETITION NO.7140 OF 2009 2 The principal grievance of the Petitioner, who was at the relevant time a Gramsevak, is that the Appellate Authority has not heard him prior to passing of the order dated 5th September 2000. The learned AGP Ms.Cardoza has filed an affidavit of one Pandurang Dagadu Kasar, Deputy Commissioner (Establishment), Pune Division, Pune. In para 5 of the said affidavit it has been stated as to how the appeal filed by the Petitioner was proceeded with. The affidavit discloses the adjournments sought on behalf of the Petitioner on various dates before the Appellate Authority. Ultimately on 8th August 2000 the Petitioner has submitted his written submissions/arguments before the Appellate Authority. 3 It is on consideration of the said written submissions of the Petitioner that the said order dated 5th September 2000 came to be passed whereby the dismissal order against the Petitioner came to be confirmed and recovery was directed against the Petitioner. In our view, the said averments disclose that there is a compliance of the principles of natural justice. 4 Apart from the aforesaid fact what is required to be noted is that the order of the year 2000 is sought to be challenged now in the year 2008 and which challenge has been raised apparently in view of the fact that a demand in terms of the said order has now been raised on the Petitioner vide letter dated 9th January 2008 and it is pertinent to note that the Petitioner only on the said demand being made on him has chosen to file the instant Petition. It is required to be noted that prior to the said letter dated 9th January 2008, the Petitioner was given a notice dated 11th December 2007 setting out the amounts to be recovered from the Petitioner in respect of each of the gram panchayats. The Petitioner ought to have challenged the said order dated 5th September 2000 within reasonable time as the demand notices are 3 WRIT PETITION NO.7140 OF 2009 only the consequential actions. In our view, the above Petition filed in November 2008 challenging the order dated 5th September 2000 is grossly belated and therefore requires to be dismissed on the said ground. 5 For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the above Petition which is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]