IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 1622 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1622 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1622 OF 2009 Shri Pramodkumar Chhotubhai Desai. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Collector, District Pune and others. ... Respondents. S.M.Oak i/b. Sagar Joshi for the petitioner. P.P.Kakade, AGP for respondent No.1. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 23rd January 2009. DATED: 23rd January 2009. DATED: 23rd January 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Perused record. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 6th January, 2009 whereby an application seeking to cross-examine the government officer came to be rejected. 3. The factual matrix reveals that the proceedings under section 16 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 ("Village Panchayats Act" for short) are initiated against the petitioner. In the said proceedings, the present application for seeking opportunity to cross-examine the government officer was made. The said application was rejected vide impugned order. 4. The report at Exh.‘C’, shows that the action is based on documents. The opportunity to cross-examine can hardly serve any purpose. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of a considered view that cross-examination of this witness is not at all necessary. The defence of the petitioner, tried to be canvassed before this Court, can very well be made out on the basis of the documents available on record. In this view, of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. No fault can be found with the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tried to rely upon some of the Supreme Court judgments; wherein the Supreme Court has held that opportunity of hearing includes right to cross-examine. The proposition sought to be raised is well established and judicially recognised. 6. The issue here is: whether cross-examination is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. In my considered view, it is not necessary. - 3 - The application appears to have been moved only to protract the litigation. Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)