FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1195/2007 (Sau. Sadhna Sanjay Adhe vs. State of Mah. and others) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Shri R.S.Charpe Adv. for petitioner. Shri A.S.Fulzene, A.G.P. for R-1, 3 & 4 Shri P.B.Patil, Adv. for R-2 CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND S.R.DONGAONKAR, JJ DATED : 11 th JUNE, 2008. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings and documents on record. As short question is involved in the petition, we proceed to dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage, by consent of the parties. Learned A.G.P. waives notice for R-1 3 & 4. Shri A.B.Patil, Advocate, waives notice for R-2. The limited controversy that needs to be addressed in this petition is whether there is substance in the grievance of the petitioner that the Scrutiny Committee proceeded to decide the matter exparte without offering any opportunity to the petitioner to remain present at the hearing. The grievance has been countered by the counsel for the Committee relying on the observations in Para 8 of the impugned decision. In so far as first two notices sent by the Committee, it is mentioned that the acknowledgments were received back with remarks 'nobody claimed the packet'. With regard to the later 3 notices sent by the Committee, there is no reference to the fact whether the acknowledgment was received back by the Committee before the date of hearing or otherwise. Assuming that the Committee had sent the said communications to the petitioner, it is seen that the notices sent to the petitioner were very short notices. Inasmuch as, the communication sent by R.P.A.D. dated 6th April, 2004, expected the petitioner to remain present for hearing to be held on 12th April, 2004. Similarly, communication sent on 10th May, 2004, expected the petitioner to remain present for hearing on 17th May, 2004 and communication dated 28th December, 2004, expected the petitioner to attend hearing on 4th January, 2005. Obviously, within such short time notice sent by R.P.A.D could not have been served, nor any acknowledgment received in the office of the Committee. In absence of the acknowledgment, one way or the other, the Committee should not have been proceeded on the scheduled date. Unless the Committee was fully satisfied that the notices have been duly served on the petitioner or that the petitioner has caused to refuse it, it could not have proceeded with the case. In our opinion, therefore, it necessarily follows that the Committee proceeded to decide the case against the petitioner exparte without offering proper opportunity to the petitioner to espouse her cause. On this count alone, the petitioner ought to succeed. We are not entering into any other issue as we think it appropriate to relegate the petitioner before the Committee to reconsider the case afresh on its own merits. While doing so, we direct the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 30th June, 2008 at 11 a.m. to avail of the opportunity to file reply and participate in the proceedings. The petitioner shall collect the Vigilance Cell Report from the office of the Committee, if so advised. It is made clear that the Committee will not be responsible to forward the copy of the Vigilance Cell Report to the petitioner. The petitioner shall submit reply on 30th June, 2008 when appearance is made and also submit all relevant documents for the purposes of scrutiny. No further notice in that behalf will be issued to the petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee may then proceed to decide the case expeditiously on the same day or on some other day as may be convenient to it, provided final decision is delivered on or before 1st August, 2008. It is made clear that all questions on merit are left open to be decided by the Committee. The petitioner shall additionally furnish latest address for the purpose of service if and when required by the Committee. Till the final decision is delivered by the Committee, the interim relief granted by this Court shall continue to operate for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the order to enable the petitioner to challenge the said order if so advised. Petition disposed of on the above terms. JUDGE JUDGE Rvjalit