20-wp-8014-10.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8014 OF 2010 Sachin Shivaji Khode ..Petitioner Vs. The Collector, Nashik and Ors. ..Respondents Shri. S.M.Gorwadkar advocate for petitioner Shri. S.N.Bhosle AGP of respondents 1, 1A and 27 Shri. M.S.Karnik advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 20th JULY, 2011. P.C.: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 1st January, 2010 passed by the Additional Collector, Nashik cancelling the permission dated 8th September, 2009 under which the petitioner was transferred the right, title and interest in an immovable property which was held by a tribal. It is the case of the petitioner that he and respondent nos.4 to 26 are tribals. The respondents 4 to 26 are the owners of land bearing Gat No. 242 of Mouje Wadgaon, District Nasik. The lands were transferred by them to the petitioner and for such a transfer, the permission of the Collector was sought in terms of Section 36-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue 1 20-wp-8014-10.doc Code, 1966. That permission was granted on 8th September, 2009. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 approached the Collector by making an application on 30th December, 2009. On this application, the impugned order has been passed. 2. Petitioner having obtained the permission the least that was expected was that notice would be given to him of the hearing of the application made by the respondent nos.2 and 3 and that his objections would be duly considered. However, without any notice and without any hearing to the petitioner, the subject permission has been cancelled. 3. Mr. Karnik, the learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3 contended before me that against the impugned order, the petitioner has remedy of appeal to the Commissioner of Nashik Division, or in any event, the revision to the State Government under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, therefore, this writ petition should not be entertained. There is an alternate efficacious remedy available in law. 4. Mr. Gorwadkar the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and in any event, existence of the alternate remedy is not an absolute bar in entertaining the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of 2 20-wp-8014-10.doc the Constitution of India. The rule is of mere caution and prudence rather than an absolute bar. 5. In my view, in the peculiar facts of this case and when the Collector has admittedly not given any prior notice of the proceedings before him to the petitioner who was going to be adversely affected by withdrawal of the permission and the petitioner was not even heard when the order was passed cancelling the earlier permission in his favour, then, this writ petition deserves to be entertained. There is substance in the contention of Mr. Gorwadkar that the availability of alternate efficacious remedy is not an absolute bar for entertaining the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and in gross and flagrant violation of the basic rules of fair-play, equity and justice, this Court can interfere in writ jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 1st January, 2010 is quashed and set aside. The application made by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 on 3rd December, 2009 shall now be heard by the Additional Collector, Nashik. Both sides to appear before him on 2nd August, 2011 at 10.30 a.m. The Additional Collector should endeavour and dispose of the application after hearing both sides and by reasoned order as expeditiously as possible and within a period of two 3 20-wp-8014-10.doc weeks from the day of the appearance. All contentions of both sides on merits of the said application are kept open. Needless to clarify that the Additional Collector, Nashik should not be influenced by any of the earlier conclusions and findings. Writ petition is disposed of in these terms with no order as to costs. [ S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ] 4