1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5405/2009 (SMT. SAVITA ASHOK BHENDARKAR VS. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER NAGPUR AND ANOTHER ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.V.Bhutada, Adv. For petitioner. Mr. Kothari, AGP, for R-1 Mr. A.Y.Kapgate, Advocate for R-2. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JANUARY 20, 2010. Heard. After remand by this Court on 25th September, 2009, vide its judgment in Writ Petition No. 3104/2009, the Respondent No.1 – Divisional Commissioner has again applied his mind. He not only considered the report of C.E.O., Z.P.Bhandara, but also called for original record and verified the records. After verification of those records, the Commissioner has found that husband of petitioner was given bill dated 17.5.2009 in front of witnesses. In view of this position, Commissioner has refused to accept the contention that signature of receipt of bill was not of husband of the petitioner. It has also been found that payment has not been made within six month. Therefore, petitioner has been deemed to be disqualified. Advocate Bhutada has invited attention to paragraph 9 of the Judgment of this Court. It only shows the 2 possibility and it does not record any finding in this respect. Advocate Bhutada also argues that opportunity of cross examining the witness ought to have been given to the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that such opportunity was demanded before the Labour Court and it was rejected. The petitioner has not pointed out as to why the witness would falsely attest a fact of service of bill upon her husband. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2008 (4) Mh.L.J. 106 [Nandini J. Shah and another vs. L.I.C of India and others] to urge that such opportunity to cross examine constitute an integral part of the process is misconceived in present circumstances. The earlier judgment of this Court here shows that the proceedings have been held to be summary and inquisitorial in nature and the same were not to be conducted like a civil suit or adverserial proceedings, by placing reliance on the judgment reported in 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 1062 [Suvarna Prakash Patil vs. Anil Hindurao Power and others]. The Division Bench Judgment pointed about above considers provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)Act, 1971. I, therefore, find that no case is made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit.