1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2383 OF 2010 Shri.Digambar Mahipati Wadekar & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar, Sr.Counsel with Mr.R.M.Pethe for Petitioners. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, A.G.P. for Respondents 1 & 2. Mr.S.A.Sawant with Ms.Gunjan Shah & Mr.Ketan Joshi for Respondents 3 to 7. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED:- APRIL 16, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Gokhale, A.G.P. waives notice for Respondents 1 and 2. Mr.Sawant waives notice for Respondents 3 to 7. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 2 4. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 30th November 2009 passed by the Collector and Deputy Director (Rehabilitation) Lands. The grievance made in this Petition is that the impugned order is the outcome of direction given by this Court in terms of Order dated 5th August 2008 in Writ Petition No.5731 of 2008. As a matter of fact, the Respondent Nos.3 to 7 had challenged the order passed by the Collector dated 16th May 2008 before the Appellate Authority. Besides, in view of the observations made in the said order dated 16th May 2008, the said Respondents had separately filed Suit for partition and questioned the correctness of the order dated 16th May 2008 even in those proceedings. Further, when the proceedings were pending before the Collector and Deputy Director (Rehabilitation) Lands, the said Respondents had filed representation to the said Authority which however remained pending. Taking advantage of that situation, the said Respondents filed Writ Petition in this Court being Writ Petition No.5731 of 2008 asking for direction against the Collector to consider the said representation expeditiously, without disclosing the material facts that they have already resorted to two other remedies to question the order dated 16th May 2008. In that, it was not disclosed that the Collector has already passed final decision on the contentious issues. Indeed, in this Writ Petition, relief was 3 prayed for setting aside the order dated 16th May 2008 but as aforesaid no disclosure was made that against the said decision the concerned Respondents had already filed Appeal and also made the said order subject matter of challenge in a Civil Suit. Obviously, in absence thereof, the Court was persuaded to issue direction to the Collector to consider the pending representation expeditiously. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 5th August 2008, the concerned Respondents made application before the Collector bringing to his notice order of this Court dated 5th August 2008. Acting upon the said application and the order passed by this Court, the Collector proceeded to entertain the pending representation and passed the impugned order on 30th November 2009 which is diametrically opposite to the view taken by him in his order dated 16th May 2008. 6. Suffice it to observe that the order passed by this Court on 5th August 2008 in Writ Petition No.5731 of 2008 was without considering the effect of the pending Appeal and the Civil Suit instituted by the same Respondents against the order dated 16th May 2008. Once the Collector has already passed the order on merits of the contentious issues, the question of reviewing his own order under the garb of entertaining representation which was pending in anterior point of time, cannot be countenanced. It is 4 obvious that the Collector proceeded to re-examine the case being influenced by the order dated 5th August 2008. He must have thought that the said order gave him no other option but to decide the representation on its own merits afresh. On that assumption, he assumed authority unto himself and passed order as above which is nothing short of review of his order dated 16th May 2008 and completely opposite to the view already taken by him, as can be discerned from the impugned order dated 30th November 2009. 7. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order dated 30th November 2009 which has been passed by the Collector in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case obviously without authority of law. The only order that ought to operate in the field is the order dated 16th May 2008, which however would be subject to the decision in pending Appeal against that decision and the opinion of the Court in the Civil Suit in that behalf, if any. 8. The next question that needs to be addressed is what action should be taken against the Respondents 3 to 7 herein for having made misleading statements in Writ Petition No.5731 of 2008 as also in not disclosing 5 relevant and material facts to the Court before inviting order dated 5th August 2008. The explanation offered by the said Respondents, in our view, is unacceptable. We gave opportunity to the Respondents to state their stand on affidavit. In response to the said liberty, the said Respondents are not only present in Court but have filed unconditional apology on record by way of affidavit dated 15th April 2010. In addition, they have reiterated their unconditional apology to the Court personally. 9. Looking at the status of the said Respondents, we do not think it necessary to precipitate the matter further. But we hope that the said Respondents would not indulge in such gimmicks in future, else face stern action. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition succeeds. The same is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) on the above terms. Civil Application also stands disposed of. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)