1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9222 OF 2010 The Tata Power Company Ltd, .. Petitioners. Vs. The Gram Panchayat, Patnus & ors .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1176 OF 2011 The Tata Power Company Ltd, .. Petitioners. Vs. The Mangaon Panchayat Samiti & ors .. Respondents Mr R.A.Dada, Sr.Advocate with Mr Chirag Balsara and H.N.Vakil & Sunil Chavan i/b M/s Mulla & Mulla & C.B. & C for the petitioners. Mr R.P.Behere, Addl.G.P for the respondent-State. Mr Nitin Atulye for respondent no.1 in W.P.No.9222/10 and R.No.2 in WP 1176 of 2011 Mr C.G.Gavnekar, for respondent no.3 in WP 1176 of 2011. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED : 26th APRIL, 2011. P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent, the petitions are heard finally. 3. In Writ Petition No.9222 of 2010, the petitioners have made the following prayer: “(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records and proceedings leading to the issuance of the said Demand Notices dated 18th November, 2010 and 22nd November, 2010 (Exhibits “N”, “N-1”,”O” and “O-1” hereto) and after T 2 examining the legality, validity and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the same.” In Writ Petition NO.1176 of 2011 the petitioners have made the following prayers: “(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the papers and proceedings leading to the passing of the impugned order dated 18th January, 2011 and after going into the legality, validity and propriety thereof, to quash and/or set aside the same.” (b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to withdraw the GR dated 9th February, 2001 (Exhibit “G: hereto) forthwith.” Insofar as the prayer (b) in Writ Petition No.1176 of 2011 is concerned, Mr Dada, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, does not press this prayer at this stage and seeks liberty to the petitioners to challenge the Government Resolution dated 9.2.2001 at appropriate stage. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection for granting such liberty.Hence, liberty, as prayed, is granted. 4. This court in Writ Petition No.9222 of 2010 on 22.12.2010 passed the following order : “We direct that the appeal pending before the respondent no.3 shall be heard and decided before 28.2.2011. We further direct that the appeals pending before the respondent no.4 shall also be heard and decided by 28.2.2011. Stand over to 7.3.2011. Till then ad-interim order passed on 6.12.2010 shall continue to operate. A copy of this order be forwarded forthwith to respondent nos 3 and 4 by RPAD/Speed Post. Till the next date, by way of ad-interim relief, stay to the penalty.” 3 In pursuance of this order, the Standing Committee decided the appeal vide order dated 18.1.2010. The petitioners contend that this order was passed by the Standing Committee without granting them an opportunity of being heard and that they have so recorded in their communication addressed to the Chairman, Standing Committee, Zilla Parishad Raigad, Alibag being letter dated 18.1.2011. In view of this letter and the contention urged by the petitioners regarding hearing of the appeal, when we asked Mr Gavanekar, learned counsel for the ZP/Standing Committee, he submitted that despite repeated requests made by the Gram Panchayat to the petitioners to produce project report and plan estimate, they did not make it available to the Standing Committee and hence they were constrained to decide the appeal in the absence of these documents and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. He further submited that if directions are issued to the petitioners to produce the project report and the plan estimate in respect of all civil constructions made by them, they are ready to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and decide the appeal afresh. Mr Dada, learned senior counsel, on the other, submitted that the petitioners will make the project report and plan estimate available to the Standing Committee on or before 15.5.2011 with other documents, if any, in support of their case. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that insofar as Writ Petition No.1176 of 4 2011 is concerned, the same can be conveniently disposed of by the following order. (i) The order dated 18.1.2011 is set aside and the appeal is restored to file. (ii) The petitioners shall produce before the Standing Committee the project report and the plan estimate with other supporting documents, if any, on or before 15.5.2011. The Standing Committee shall thereafter fix the appeal for hearing with atleast 72 hours advance intimation/notice to the petitioners. It is needless to mention that the Standing Committee shall grant hearing to the petitioners and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. Insofar as Writ Petition No.9222 of 2010 is concerned, this court is informed that the First Appeal has already been decided by the Panchayat Samitee on 18.2.2011 and their further appeal, filed on 11.3.2011, is now pending before the Standing Committee. Insofar as this appeal is concerned, the petitioners are directed to furnish to the Standing Committee the area of all structures on or before 15.5.2011. They may also produce documents on which they intend to rely upon in support of their case. The standing Committee shall decide this appeal also on merits in accordance with law and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as to the Gram Panchat. Standing Committee shall give atleast 72 hours advance intimation / notice to the 5 petitioners regarding the date of hearing of the appeal. It is needless to mention that till the appeal is finally decided by the Standing Committee of Zilla Parishad, Raigad, the impugned demand notice shall not be implemented. All contentions of the parties are kept open. Rule in both the petitions is disposed of. No costs. (U.D.SALVI,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)