: 1 : wp.2790.2010.sxw vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2790 OF 2010 Oshiwara Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr.Adv. With Vishal Ghosalkar and Vinod Jadhav for the Petitioners Mr.R.M. Patne, AGP, for Respl Nos.1 to 4 Mr.Y.S. Jahagirdar Sr.Adv. With E.R. Naik for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7 CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE: JULY 7, 2011. P.C.: 1. This petition is one more example of how the hearing of quasi judicial matters goes on before the State Government. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Minister of Cooperation and Textiles, Government of Maharashtra which was passed on 18.3.2011 in a Revision Application. That revision application is stated to have been filed by Respondent Nos.6 and 7 to the present petition. 3. The petitioner society has been registered on 31.8.2002. It appears that an application was made by Respondent Nos.6 and 7 complaining that this registration has been obtained by misrepresentation and misleading the : 2 : wp.2790.2010.sxw authorities and, therefore, the petitioner be deregistered. That request was rejected by the Divisional Joint Registrar and aggrieved by his order the matter was carried in revision to the State Government. 4. It has been pointed out in the writ petition by the petitioners that the revision was time barred. The delay was about 205 days. An application for condonation of delay was made. The petitioners have made a specific allegation in this writ petition that they pointed out to Respondent NO.2 Minister that the application for condonation of delay needs to be disposed of without which the proceedings cannot be registered. However, he ignored this request and the petitioners were forced to argue the matter on merits without the delay being condoned. There is no order of condonation of delay. Therefore, the order passed on merits on 30.7.2010 in Appeal NO.628 of 2009 was challenged by filing Writ Petition No.6943 of 2010 in this Court. That Writ Petition was heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 24.9.2010. By consent of parties, that writ petition came to be allowed, the order impugned was set aside and the matter was remitted back. Annexure G to this writ petition is a copy of the said order. 5. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of this writ petition, it has been pointed out by the petitioners that pursuant to the directions of this Court, they appeared before Respondent No.2 Minister on 8.10.2010 at 11 am but the advocate for respondent Nos.6 and 7, and these Respondents were absent. The petitioners expected that a fresh date of hearing will be duly communicated to them. : 3 : wp.2790.2010.sxw However, they got a phone call on 19.10.2010 to attend the Minister's office for a hearing at 3 pm. The hearing was scheduled at 2 pm. Till 3 pm, the respondent No.2 was not available and there were about 46 matters listed before him. He arrived at his Office at 3.30 pm, the matters were called out as a roll call and the parties were directed to make their submissions in less than a minute. Respondent No.2 stated that he is in a hurry as he has to attend a function at Pune with the Chief Minister. The petitioners have recorded all this in para 7 and they have also recorded in para 8 of the petition that the application for condonation of delay was directed to be disposed of first. However, they do not have any record of such an application being allowed separately. All that they were informed was there is a hearing fixed before Respondent No.2 on 5.11.2010. The Petitioners therefore apprehended that there would be a repetition of the earlier event and hence, they requested the authorities to intimate them that since the period prescribed by the High Court in the order of 24.9.2010 has expired on 5.11.2010 and all that has been conducted was a hearing of 19.10.2010, then, how Respondent No.2 proposes to go and proceed in the matter should be made known to the petitioners. This is the communication referred to in para 9, copy of which is at annexure K to the petition. 6. In para 10, the petitioners have stated that the repeated enquiries did not result in any response and communication of the order on the application for condonation of delay. The petitioners received a notice of caveat filed in this Court on 6.12.2010 alongwith a copy of the order passed by respondent No.2 in : 4 : wp.2790.2010.sxw the delay condonation application purportedly on 8.11.2010. 7. The Minister then placed the matter namely for hearing the main revision application on 23.11.2010 at 3 pm. However, no notice of this hearing, either oral or in writing was given to the Petitioners or their office bearers. The Petitioners are not aware as to what happened on the so called scheduled date and this is an averment which has been made in para 12 of the said petition. The Petitioners had filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 8.11.2010 on the application for condonation of delay and they also stated in para 14 that during the pendency of the said writ petition, a notice of hearing was given to them. They, therefore, attended the office of Respondent No.2 and filed the written submissions. A grievance was made in the written submissions as well that the matter is not proceeding as per the directions of this Court and though the writ petition is pending in this Court and not to invite any objections of non- cooperation that the Petitioners attended his Office. There was no application made for producing additional documents or leading additional evidence. The hearing took place on 11.1.2011 but in the impugned order it is stated that on 23.12.2010, a hearing was conducted at which the petitioners and their representatives were allegedly present. The petitioners have specifically stated that they have no communication or notice of any hearing of 23.12.2010. They did not know how this fact has been recorded in the impugned order. There was only a hearing on 11.1.2011. The matter was attended by the petitioners only because of the orders and directions of this Court and they brought it to the notice of the Minister that the time to dispose off the proceedings expires on : 5 : wp.2790.2010.sxw 6.2.2011. However, on 25.3.2011 when the Secretary of the Petitioner enquired with the office of the Minister he was informed that an order is already passed and, therefore he applied for a certified copy and he was provided at that stage with a copy of the impugned order dated 18.3.2011. 8. It is in these circumstances that Mr.Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submits that none of these statements have been controverted by the learned AGP nor the record has been produced to deny or dispute the same. This Writ Petition has been pending in this Court from April 2011. 9. Repeatedly I have been observing that what is going on before the authorities and particularly the Hon'ble Ministers of the concerned Departments is a hasty exercise which could hardly be termed as a hearing of a quasi judicial matter. This Court is flooded with writ petitions wherein the only grievance raised is that the parties were not heard before an adverse order was made. It is not that this grievance has been made in this matter alone. It has been my experience throughout that whenever the original records are called for they reveal that the parties and their advocates have attended on the dates notified but the proceedings are adjourned to subsequent dates due to non-availability of the officers and Ministers. Thereafter, intimations are not given in time or wherever given, they are received just a day before the hearing. The authorities ought to be aware of the fact that all parties are not residing in Mumbai or in Pune so as to rush to their offices on a phone call. They ought to : 6 : wp.2790.2010.sxw give an adequate and proper notice of the hearings. The notices should be issued in advance and only on ensuring receipt thereof that the matters could be taken up in the absence of the parties. The authorities ought to record reasons as to why they are proceeding in the absence of parties and their order must reflect that since parties are deliberately keeping away from the proceedings or avoiding to take notice that the matters are decided in their absence. Sometimes, the matters are fixed by orders of this Court. It is not as if the authorities are helpless because they have a whole set up in the form of the Office of the Government Pleader attached to this Court who make frequent requests for extension of time on their behalf. Such requests are granted depending upon the exigencies of work and being satisfied that despite all efforts the matters could not be disposed of within the time stipulated in this Court's order. In such cases routinely the time is extended on the request of the Additional Government Pleader / Government Pleader / Assistant Government Pleader. The orders are passed without even calling upon the petitioners' advocate or the affected parties to appear. 10. However, despite such accommodation, clear directions of this Court that personal hearing whenever sought must be given and wherever directed cannot be dispensed with, routinely orders are passed by the authorities in a casual and cavalier manner completely disregarding the orders of this Court and in any event principles of natural justice. They ought to be aware of the fact that they decide the fate of litigants and adversely affect their rights either in property or otherwise. In such circumstances, the seriousness that has to be : 7 : wp.2790.2010.sxw attached to the hearing so as to not reduce it to a farce or a ritual, is the least that is expected by this Court. In Advanced law Lexicon by P.Ramnatha Aiyer, 3rd Edition, Reprint 2007, a “hearing” is defined as a judicial Session held for the purpose of deciding issues of fact or that of Law. In Administrative Law, presentment of Argument by the affected individual to the decision making Authority. A hearing in Person contemplates listening to pleadings, evidence and Arguments. Thus, understood it can never be curtailed or short circuited without any reasonable grounds. The settled principle that Justice must not only be done but seen to be done is squarely applicable. A Quasi Judicial power must be exercised in accordance with the Principles of Natural Justice. The hearing may be regulated but surely if there is a direction to grant a Personal hearing that cannot be dispensed with or brushed aside. Equally, the hearing must be a meaningful exercise and not an empty formality. In this case, these basic Rules h ave not been adhered to, rather they are given a go- bye. In the name of a hearing a hasty and meaningless exercise has been undertaken, which cannot be accepted or construed as compliance with Rule of Law. 11. The time of this Court is wasted on most occasions in only finding out whether there has been a proper and adequate notice of hearing or if at all a hearing was held it was fair and just. Whenever original records are produced before this Court, more often than not the result is complete non-compliance with fundamental and basic requirements of quasi judicial adjudication. Resultantly, the orders are set aside and matters are remitted back. This : 8 : wp.2790.2010.sxw should not become a routine and regular course in this Court. Very often old and deserving cases cannot be taken up because judicial time is consumed in dealing with complaints made of the above nature and requests for a fresh hearing. The matters being of some importance and significance they are heard finally but at least two or three adjournments are necessitated so as to enable the original records to be produced and for the files to be perused. All this is clearly avoidable. 12. This is one more instance where the principles of natural justice have been flagrantly violated by Respondent No.2. It is very clear from his order that he was concerned with Revision Application No.628 of 2009. However, while deciding the said application, somewhere in the midst, he lost sight of the fact that there is a distinction between a Revision Application and an Appeal. Whether in a revision application, which is being decided, it is permissible for him to take additional documents on record or allowing the application for production thereof at the instance of some of the parties or not ought to be made clear by taking recourse to some provision of law or the rules which regulate the procedural aspects at the hearing. Nothing of this kind seems to be present to his mind and naturally because he was in a hurry to proceed for other important work. Resultantly, the proceedings which have been decided under the impugned order have become a casualty. The averments in the writ petition to which I made a reference to being undisputed a perusal thereof would reveal that the petitioners had no proper and fair opportunity to present their version. : 9 : wp.2790.2010.sxw 13. This is a fit case where the orders passed by the Minister on the application for condonation of delay and on the main application are both set aside. The revision application will now be placed before the Secretary in the Department of Cooperation and Textiles and shall be reheard by him after the parties are given full opportunity to place their version firstly on the application for condonation of delay. After the delay is condoned the main matter may be taken up in the terms of the order dated 24.9.2010. The Secretary should pass clear and distinct orders on both the applications. He should assign cogent and satisfactory reason in arriving at a conclusion either way. The date and time of the hearing of both the applications should be notified well in advance to all parties. The endeavour by the Secretary should be to ensure that at least the application which will be taken up first is decided with the urgency that is expected in deciding such matters. He may later on, if he condones the delay take up the main matter and dispose it off. 14. With these directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Needless to state that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the contentions raised in support of the application for delay or opposing the same. Equally, the Court has not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions as far as the merits are concerned. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)