:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.6839 OF 2003 PETITION NO.6839 OF 2003 PETITION NO.6839 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra Through the Principal Secretary Revenue & Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032 ..Petitioner V/s 1. Bhaskar D. Sanap A-84,Jetvan Additional Collector’s Bunglow, Opp. Golf Club, Nasik 422001 2. Vasant Vistari Poreddiwar Residing at 305, Tushar, "A" Road Churchagate, Mumbai 400020 3. Shri R.C. Chavan, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune 4. Shri S.R. Kamble, Additional Commissioner, Mumbai City, 5. Shri A.T. Kumbhar, Dy. Commissioner, Konkan Division ..Respondents Mr.N.P. Deshpande, AGP for the petitioner Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar i/b Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for respondent No.1. Mr.S.S. Pakale with S. Humane for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. AND AND AND WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.6407 OF 2003 PETITION NO.6407 OF 2003 PETITION NO.6407 OF 2003 :2: 1. Shri M.K. Thombare Deputy Commissioner (Ent) Pune Division, Pune 2. Shri G.B. Maware, Deputy Commissioner (Resettlement) Pune Division, Pune 3. Shri P.E. Gaikwad Associate Professor, Yeshoda, Pune- 411007 4. Dr.A.T. Kumbhar, Deputy Commissioner Konkan Division, 5. Shri S.K. Kamble, Additional Commissioner, Mumbai City. ..Petitioners V/s 1. Bhaskar D. Sanap A-84,Jetvan Additional Collector’s Bunglow, Opp. Golf Club, Nasik 422001 2. Vasant Vistari Poreddiwar Residing at 305, Tushar, "A" Road Churchagate, Mumbai 400020 3. Shri R.C. Chavan, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune 4. The State of Maharashtra Through the Principal Secretary Revenue & Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032 ...Respondents Mr. P.V. Dhakephalkar i/b N.V. Bandiwadekar for respondent No.1. Mr. P.N. Deshpande, AGP for respondent No.4. :3: CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND A.A. A.A. A.A. SAYED, JJ. SAYED, JJ. SAYED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 13TH MARCH, 2008 : 13TH MARCH, 2008 : 13TH MARCH, 2008 ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) JUDGMENT ( PER D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) JUDGMENT ( PER D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) 1. By both the petitions the same order has been challenged and the same issue is involved in both the petitions therefore, both the petitions can be conveniently disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts which are relevant and material for deciding these petitions are that Mr. Sanap is in service of the Government of Maharashtra in the Department of Revenue. It appears that he was holding the post of Tahasildar. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Deputy Collector by order dated 16.9.1985. The Government of Maharashtra issued order dated 23.12.1994, giving deemed date of promotion to Mr. Sanap in the cadre of Deputy collector i.e. 16th August, 1983. It appears that thereafter certain petitions were filed before the :4: Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal seeking deemed date of promotion in the cadre of Deputy Collector on the ground that those persons should also be given deemed date of promotion because they are similarly situated as Mr. Sanap. During the hearing of these petitions, it appears that Government realised that deemed date of promotion given to Mr. Sanap was a mistake and therefore, the Government issued another order dated 9.1.2002 cancelling its order dated 23.12.1994 by which deemed date of promotion was given to Mr.Sanap in the cadre of Deputy Collector. Another order was issued on 22nd February, 2002 giving new placement in the seniority list to Mr. Sanap, in view of the cancellation of the deemed date of promotion. Both these orders were challenged by Mr. Sanap before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing original application No.318/2002. The Maharasthra Administrative Tribunal decided that application by order dated 1.10.2o02. MAT allowed the original application and set aside order dated 9.1.2002 and 22.2.2002 and confirmed the deemed date of promotion given to Mr. Sanap. It appears that the State Government filed a review application before the MAT seeking review of the order. Some :5: persons who are the petitioners in Writ Petition No.6407/2003 also filed application before the MAT for being joined as party to the review application. MAT disposed of all these applications by order dated 20.2.2002. Challenging all these orders, original order as also the order passed in review application and Misc. applications, these two writ petitions have been filed being Writ Petition No. 6839/2003, filed by State of Maharashtra and Writ Petition No.6407/2003 has been filed by some of the persons who had applied to the Tribunal for permission to be joined as respondent in review application. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra and the petitioners in Writ Petition No.6407/2002 submit that the order giving deemed date of promotion to Mr. Sanap, dated 23.12.1994 was invalid and illegal order. The Government realised that the order is invalid when some applications were filed before the MAT by the officers claiming similar deemed date of promotion and therefore, the Government cancelled the order granting deemed date of promotion to Mr. Sanap. According to learned Counsel as the order giving deemed date of promotion :6: to Mr. Sanap, was made by mistake the Government was entitled to correct that mistake. According to him, MAT was not justified in saying that there is no power vested in the State Government to review its order and correct obvious mistake committed by the Government. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 6407/2003 adopted the submissions made by the learned Advocate appearing for Government of Maharashtra. The learned Advocate appearing for Government also submits that as an opportunity of being heard was not given to Mr. Sanap before order granting him deemed date of promotion was withdrawn or cancelled, the Tribunal ought to have given liberty to Government to issue Show Cause Notice to Mr. Sanap and then pass appropriate order. The learned Counsel appearing for Mr. Sanap on the other hand submits that firstly, the order giving deemed date of promotion was made in the year 1994 thereafter the petitioner was promoted from the post of Deputy Collector to the post of Additional Collector on 29.6.1998. Therefore, the order giving deemed date of promotion to Mr. Sanap was acted upon. Even assuming that there is power to review that power has to be exercised within a :7: reasonable time. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, in any case, the Government ought to have taken steps to withdraw the order before the order was acted upon and further promotion was given to Mr. Sanap. The learned Counsel further submits that there is no question of Tribunal giving any liberty to the State Government to take the some action after issuing notice because of inordinate delay involved and passage of time. He submits that so far as petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6407/2003 are concerned, they had not at any point of time challenged the deemed order of promotion given to the petitioner. Therefore, they have no locus standi either to claim that deemed date of promotion was wrongly given to Mr. Sanap or to defend the order of State Government cancelling the order cancelling the deemed date of promotion. 4. Perusal of the orders of MAT both in the original application, and in the review petition shows that the MAT has given cogent reasons for making the orders. There can be no doubt that the order cancelling the order, giving deemed date of promotion to Mr. Sanap, could have not been made :8: without giving Show cause notice to Mr. Sanap. Therefore, in our opinion no exception can be taken to the orders passed by MAT setting aside the order which were impugned before it. In our opinion the only question that needs to be considered is whether MAT should have given liberty to the State Government to issue show cause notice and then make the order. In our opinion the Government of Maharashtra was not entitled to any liberty because of two circumstances one passage of time, because even if it is assumed though the MAT has held that the Government does not have power of review, that the government had power of review but that power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. The Government had made order giving deemed date of promotion in the year 1994 nobody challenged that order and the order withdrawing that deemed date of promotion has been made in the year 2002. In our opinion the Government of Maharashtra was not at all justified in exercising the power of review after lapse of such a long time Secondly, the petitioner has been given further promotion in the year 1998 itself on the basis of deemed date of promotion. Therefore, it is obvious that not only the deemed date of promotion was given :9: by the Government of Maharashtra but the Government of Maharashtra has acted upon it and gave further promotion to Mr. Sanap. Nobody either challenged the order given deemed date of promotion and change the placement in the seniority list or the promotion to the post of Additional Collector in the year 1998. Granting liberty to the State Government would have involved in unsettling the entire situation. In our opinion therefore, the MAT was perfectly justified in not granting liberty to the State Government. So far as, Writ Petition No.6407/2003 is concerned, in our opinion what has been done by the order of the MAT is that the position that existed in 1994 has been restored. It is an admitted position that after the order dated 23.12.1994 giving deemed date of promotion to the petitioner was made none of the the persons who are the petitioners in Writ Petition No.6407/2003 made any grievance about it, either by approaching the State Government or by approaching the MAT. In our opinion, therefore, now they have no locus standi to make any grievance about the grant of deemed date of promotion to Mr. Sanap. 5. Taking over all view of the matter therefore, :10: in our opinion both the petitions have no substance and they fail and are dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K. (D.K. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) DESHMUKH, J.) DESHMUKH, J.) ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)