1 WP No.2647/2011gr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2647 OF 2011 Rekha Subhash Sagtar and ors .. Petitioners. Versus Chandrakant Sitaram Malusare and ors .. Respondents. Mr S.G.Karandikar i/b B.Amin & Co, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr R.M.Patne, AGP, for respondent no.6. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1815 OF 2011 Ramesh Shorilala Khurana .. Petitioner. Versus Advocate S.K.Tiwari and ors .. Respondents. Mr S.S.Patwardhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr Nitesh Bhutekar, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr R.M.Patne, AGP for respondent nos 3 to 5. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1968 OF 2011 Gajanan Gotiram Pedhavi .. Petitioner. Versus Smt Shailaja Dattatray Chavan and ors .. Respondents. Mr Dushyant S Pagare, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr S.S.Patwardhan for respondent no.2. Mr A.I.Patel, AGP, for respondent nos 3 to 5. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2604 OF 2011 The Estate Investment Co(P) Ltd .. Petitioners. Versus Suman Kamlakar Raut and ors . . Respondents. Mr Pradeep Patil i/b M/s Mehta & Girdharlal, Advocate for the petitioner. T 2 WP No.2647/2011gr Mr N.V.Gangal, Advocate for respondent no.1. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3005 OF 2011 Shri Yashwant Dhondu Dangale .. Petitioner. Versus Mr Ravindra Sonu Navale and ors .. Respondents. Mr Hemant P Ghadigaonkar,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr R.M.Patne, AGP, for respondent nos 11 to 13. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3259 OF 2011 Samba Maruti Ghadge, since deceased through his legal heir Aaban Samba Ghadge .. Petitioner. Versus Shri Vivekanand A Kore @ Vaskar & Anr .. Respondents. Shri N.V.Walawalkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr Pankaj J Das, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3311 OF 2011 Smt Sushila Jagdish Kapadia and Anr .. Petitioners. Versus Sub Divisional Officer, Tal.Alibag, Dist:Raigad and ors .. Respondents. Ms Kranti S.S.Anand, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr Roshan S Tanna i/b J.M.Joshi, for respondent no.8. Mr A.I.Patel, AGP, for respondent nos 1 and 2. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3624 OF 2011 Mr Adi Ratanshah Cooper and ors .. Petitioners. Versus Sub Divisional Officer, Division Dahanu, Thane and ors .. Respondents. 3 WP No.2647/2011gr Mr Ranvir Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr R.M.Patne, AGP for respondent nos 1 and 2. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3715 OF 2011 Ramchandra Ganpat Chavan and ors .. Petitioners. Versus Soma Pandurang Kumbhar Shrikar since deceased through legal heirs 1(a) Kamlakar Soma Kumbhar Shirkar and ors .. Respondents. Mr P.B.Kakade and D.P.Mane, Advocates, for the petitioners. Mr A.I.Patel, AGP, for respondent nos 2 to 4. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3628 OF 2011 Jayram Maruti Munde .. Petitioner. Versus Gulab Chintaman Tare and ors .. Respondents. Mr S.G.Karandikar, for the petitioner. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4285 OF 2011 Pandurang Shankar Mahabaleshwarkar .. Petitioner. Versus Shivaji Bhiku Sapkal and ors .. Respondents. Ms Ashvini A Takalkar i/b Mr Nitin P Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr R.M.Patne, AGP, for the respondent-State. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 15th June, 2011. P.C.: 1. The affidavit that is filed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forests Department, is taken on record. In this affidavit which is affirmed on 14.6.2011, it 4 WP No.2647/2011gr is stated that the newly appointed President has taken charge. The appointments for the post of Members at Bombay and Pune will be made. The respondents have made appointment of Members at Aurangabad Bench and Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal. Upon query from the Court, Mr Patane, on taking instructions, makes a statement that the appointments on the post of Members of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal for its principal seat at Mumbai and bench at Pune will be made within a period of four weeks from today. 2. On the earlier occasion as well as today, attention of the Court was invited by some of the counsel appearing for the parties to the fact that the package of pay/emoluments for the post of Member is wholly inadequate. Presently , a consolidated salary of Rs.15000/- is offered and they expect a retired judicial officer from the subordinate judiciary to offer his services for working as Member. With the increase in cost of living and prices and at the age at which the retired judicial officers offer their services, it is contended that it is not possible for them to render effective, proper and complete service, with this inadequate package. In a city like Mumbai and Pune cost of transportation and living is enormous. Therefore, there is necessity to revise the pay package and make it reasonable so as to render quality justice to litigants and attract best talent. All that this court can express is that these aspects deserve merit and serious consideration. The State will be well advised to offer a reasonable package to persons who are ready and willing to work as Members of this Tribunal and prima facie the consolidated pay, which is being paid till date, is inadequate. In such circumstances, unless and until a decision is taken to revise the emoluments and pay and offer a proper package to the judicial officer who has retired from judicial service to work as Member, the State would get persons, who offer their 5 WP No.2647/2011gr services temporarily, but later-on find it difficult to continue. As is being expressed, in the past, a member joined and later on finding that the pay package is inadequate, left midway. This causes inconvenience and disturbs the working of the Tribunal . The State should not create a situation whereby day-to-day working and functioning of the Tribunal is affected adversely. 3. The affidavit of the Principal Secretary is taken on record. Let these matters be placed for directions before this court after six weeks. 4. In the meantime, the ad-interim orders passed in these petitions, shall continue for a period of eight weeks so as to enable the petitioners to approach the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in revisional jurisdiction and seek interim stay of the orders that have been impugned by them. It is clarified that no opinion is expressed on any of the contentions raised before me. The Tribunal should not be influenced by the fact that this court has granted ad-interim protection. Even at this prima facie stage the Tribunal is free to reach its own conclusion, and only to enable the parties to approach the Tribunal and seek interim orders, that the protection is continued. These matters be listed after six weeks. 5. In matters which are circulated and mentioned today where there are no Ad-interim orders, to enable the petitioners to approach the Tribunal and seek interim relief, it is directed that all parties shall maintain status-quo as of today in relation to the immovable properties. This order and direction is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. 6. It is clarified that the orders passed in these petitions is only to enable the parties to seek interim relief before the Tribunal and needless to state that the Tribunal may take up the matters as per its convenience and nothing prevents it 6 WP No.2647/2011gr from either extending the orders passed today or passing such other interim or ad-interim orders, as are permissible under law. 7. The apprehension of Mr Karndikar and other counsel is that the matters within the jurisdiction of the Pune Bench may also have to be moved before the learned President at Bombay. They may be moved but this order does not prevent him from taking the matters himself or assigning them to any appropriate Bench. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)