1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4970 OF 2009 (Dikshabhoomi Shikshan Sanstha through its President Shri Vasantrao Humne & Anr. vs. Sanjay Shrichand Meshram & Anr.) AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4971 OF 2009 (Dikshabhoomi Shikshan Sanstha through its President Shri Vasantrao Humne & Anr. vs. Kewaldas Chokhaji Satpute & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 08, 2009. Heard Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Pardhy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Fulzele, learned AGP for respondent No.2. The challenge in both these matters is to order dated 12.10.2009 passed by the School Tribunal, refusing to send document in dispute to Handwriting expert. The contention of the petitioners is that after taking over management, they found unauthorized persons claiming to be working in school and hence after verification, they came to know that the proceedings of meeting dated 13.02.2005 were tampered with and certain subjects were added. It is the contention of the petitioners that after such addition, President’s signature at the end of those proceedings has been forged. They also contend that seal (stamp) applied below that signature is also altogether different. The respondents claimed that it is the signature of Shri Pramod Chahande 2 and the petitioners point out that Shri Chahande has disclosed that it is not his signature. Shri Bhoutik, Head Master, who is claimed to have fabricated those proceedings is already dismissed. In this situation, as the application was rejected only because of its late filing before School Tribunal, notice was issued and Shri Pardhy, learned counsel has appeared in response to said notice. He has pointed out that the fabrication is not still proved and all these documents on the basis of which the petitioner – management is claiming fabrication were available with management since last about four years. He further points out that the respondent – employee has argued his appeal finally in August 2009 and because of change of counsel, the petitioners have been delaying the final adjudicating of appeals by School Tribunal. In this back ground, I have heard both learned counsel at length. After some argument and upon instructions, the following arrangement is agreed to by the parties. 1. The petitioners shall pay cost of Rs.6000/- each to the respondent – employee by 20.12.2009. 2. The School Tribunal shall forward the document in dispute to Government handwriting expert and seek the opinion about disputed signature / seal as early as possible and in any case within a period of one month from the date of reference if the costs are paid. The cost of said exercise shall be borne by the petitioners – management. 3 3. If the costs are not so paid by 20.12.2009, the application of the petitioners shall stand rejected and School Tribunal shall proceed further to decide the appeal. 4. After the report becomes available, School Tribunal shall proceed further to hear the parties on merits and decide the appeal finally as early as possible and in any case by 30th April 2010. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside for said purpose. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.