-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.10443 OF 2004 PETITION NO.10443 OF 2004 PETITION NO.10443 OF 2004 The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Petitioners v/s Smt Sulabha Ajit Kulkarni ...Respondent Mr V.A. Gangal with Mr S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for Petitioners. Mr Nitin Pradhan with Ms Anita Unnikrishnan i/b Mr M.I. Pathan for Respondent. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.Y. GANOO JJ. DATE : 23RD JUNE 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. By this petition, a common order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in original application No.243 of 2003 and the other connected original applications dated 12.12.2003 has been challenged. By that order, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has held that the respondents are entitled to the house rent allowance. During the course of the hearing, we find that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the judgment of the Tribunal dated 28th March 2003 passed in original application No.989 of 2002, but the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the judgment of the same Tribunal dated 18th September 2002 passed in original application No.378 of 2002, as also the judgment of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal passed in original application No. 416 of 2000 dated 23rd July 2001. We were also pointed out that there is an order dated 28th March 2003 passed in original application No.989 of 2002 passed by the same Tribunal which is also relevant. We also find that there is a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Director, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kesaragod and others Vs. M.Purushothaman and others, reported in AIR 1994 SC 2541 which appears to -3- have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal in its judgment dated 23th July 2001 in original application No.416 of 2000, but it does not appear to have been considered by the Tribunal in the order which is impugned in this petition. The learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, therefore, agreed that the order of the MAT which is impugned in this petition is to be set aside and the original application be remitted back to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for denovo consideration and decision in accordance with law. In view of this request, in our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice. (i) Petition succeeds and is allowed. The common order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which is impugned in this petition is set aside. The original application is remitted back to the Tribunal for denovo consideration and decision in accordance with law. (ii) Considering that the matter is filed in the year 2003, the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary as -4- true copy. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( R.Y. GANOO J.)