IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 120 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 120 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 120 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4166 OF WRIT PETITION NO. 4166 OF WRIT PETITION NO. 4166 OF 1997 1997 1997 Koyana Education Society & Anr. ...Appellants V/s. Shri Prakash Kisan Shirke & Ors. ...Respondents Mrs.Anita A. Agarwal for the Appellant. Mr.U.P. Warunjikar for Respondent No.1. Mr.R.P. Behere, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.3 to 5. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JUNE 30, 2008 DATED : JUNE 30, 2008 DATED : JUNE 30, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 6th June, 2007. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that certain records which were produced before the learned Single Judge, some of them could not be produced before the School Tribunal in the controversial hearing, particularly, in relation to appointment of the petitioner-respondent herein. No doubt, Education - 2 - Officer was not impleaded as a party by the respondent in the present appeal before the School Tribunal. This fact was also noticed by the learned Single Judge. On this premise, it is further contended that no reasons have been given for not considering the documents filed by the appellant on record and this was a matter which need to be remanded to the Tribunal. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, contends that the order of the Tribunal is based on evidence and does not call for interference. However, the matter is pressed to be remanded to the learned Single Judge for consideration and in accordance with law. 4. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the learned Single Judge has not recorded reasons on what was not available before the Court when the order dated 6th June, 2007 was passed, we set aside the order and remand case to the learned Single Judge. This remand is subject to the condition that the appellant herein may file an appropriate application - 3 - within two weeks from today with requisite documents on record which will have to be considered by the learned Single Judge. If such documents are filed, the Court may proceed, in accordance with law. In the event, no such application is filed within the period indicated, the order passed by the learned Single Judge shall become operative and the present appeal shall automatically stand dismissed. 5. We make it clear that we are not making any observation on merits on the order passed by the learned Single Judge. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J.