1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 1077/2011. Suresh Jagannath Patil -versus- Divisional Commissioner and others. __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 14, 2011. Heard Shri P.C. Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri N.W. Sambre, learned Government Pleader for respondent no.1 and Shri C.S. Kaptan, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. Nobody appears for respondent no.3 though served. By placing reliance upon orders dated 01.12.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 4664/2008, Shri Madkholkar, learned Counsel for petitioner states that there the recognition to a person as a group leader has been held to be an administrative exercise and therefore, 2 the petition was rejected summarily. He contends that same standards ought to have been applied by respondent no.1 Divisional Commissioner in present matter also. He relies upon the impugned order dated 11.10.2010 to show that there the quasi judicial process has been followed to record a finding about substitution of group leader and validity of the procedure followed. His contention is, this procedure adopted is directly in conflict with the orders dated 01.12.2008 in Writ Petition No.4664/2008 and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader is supporting the impugned order. According to him, in the light of the objections received, the respondent no.1 found verification necessary and while verifying the facts, appropriate opportunities to all the parties have been given. He therefore, contends that nature of power exercised is not decisive in present situation. Shri Kaptan, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 staes that as a body Corporation, it is not interested in taking any sides and the order passed in accordance with law should be upheld or restored by this Court. 3 Having heard respective counsel, we find facts presented to respondent no.1 necessitated scrutiny into disputed questions and while undertaking that scrutiny, respondent no.1 has thought it proper to extend opportunities to all contesting parties. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. In this situation, whether the order is administrative or quasi judicial, is not very material, at least in present facts. The nature of procedure adopted by itself is not decisive of the controversy raised before respondent no.1. Hence, leaving contentions raised by Shri Madkholkar, learned counsel for petitioners open for consideration in appropriate circumstances, we dispose of the present petition. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.