1 wp10467.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10467 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Deshmukh and Mrs. Deshmukh, Advocates for respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 1ST APRIL, 2011 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Kolpe for petitioner, Advocate Mr. Deshmukh for respondent no.2 and Advocate Mrs. Deshmukh for respondent no.1. 2. Advocate Mr. Kolpe relies upon the express provisions of Rule 4 sub-Rule (a) of the Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963. He states that as per Rule 4A Clause (2)(a) thereof for determination of damages as sustained by the petitioner the panchanama prepared by team appointed by Presiding Officer can be relied upon. He contends that therefore the reasons in the impugned order that the 2 wp10467.10 provisions of Section 12 of the Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 does not contain any procedure therefor, is incorrect. 3. Respective Counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 contend that the Petition as filed is by way of after thought. Claim itself is belated and unsustainable. Attention is invited to communication dated 11.07.2007 sent by Competent Authority i.e. respondent no.1 to show that alleged well was not found within affected area and hence spot inspection in presence of petitioner then conducted no sediment was found in that well. The other contentions to show that such application is not maintainable at all are also being advanced. The impugned order does not give any other reason for rejecting the prayer of petitioner and only absence of power under Section 12 of the 1962 Act is found to be sufficient by the respondent no.1 to reject it. It appears that its attention was not invited to Rule 4A Clause (2)(a) of the above mentioned 1963 Rules. 4. In view of this, I am not inclined to examine various arguments about the maintainability or resjudicata etc being raised by respondents at this stage. 5. Impugned order dated 20.10.2010 is quashed and set aside. Application dated 11.10.2010 moved by petitioner is restored back to the file of Competent 3 wp10467.10 Authority. All the contentions being raised by respondents before this Court are kept open for consideration of that authority in accordance with law. Respondent no.1 shall hear all the concerned and thereafter take appropriate decision on that application. 6. Petition is thus allowed. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp10467.10