1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4671 OF 2008 (Shreekrushna Sitaram Shirsat vs. State and another) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : MARCH 31, 2009 Heard Shri Wahane, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. The following facts are not in dispute : The petitioner approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 209/2006, which was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 5.4.2007 by observing thus : “Heard Shri Sirsat, the applicant in person and Shri Dhole, the learned P.O. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2) P.O. files copy of the order of the Govt. dtd. 4.4.2007 on the record and copy of the same is supplied to the applicant. By the said order, the Govt. has regularised the suspension period of the applicant from 17.12.80 to 7.12.94 2 as duty period. Direction is also given in the said order to make the payment after adjusting the subsistence allowance already paid to the applicant. 3) In view of the above, O.A. is disposed of with a direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to make the payment in respect of retiral benefits and other consequential benefits. 4) The applicant is also directed to cooperate with respondents, to finalise his case as directed above. Applicant is also directed to submit necessary prescribed forms for sanction and release of retiral benefits to respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 within a period of 3 weeks and the said order be complied with within next 3 months thereafter by respondent nos. 1 and 2. No costs.” Thereafter, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 6/2008 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal under Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act for execution of order dated 5.4.2007. Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader states that Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act deals only with execution of orders passed by the Tribunal and contemplates that final order passed by the Tribunal shall not be called in question in any Court and shall 3 be executed in the same manner in which the said final order is passed. It is contended that in the instant case, petitioner filed miscellaneous civil application under Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act only for execution of order dated 5.4.2007. It is further contended that the respondents have complied with the directions issued by the Tribunal in order dated 5.4.2007 by considering the claim of the petitioner and settled the claim of the petitioner in respect of suspension period as well as other retiral benefits to which petitioner was legally entitled and, therefore, respondents having complied with the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal ought to have rejected the miscellaneous civil application filed by the petitioner under Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. However, the Tribunal once again adjudicated upon the issue, which was not permissible since miscellaneous civil application filed by the petitioner was under Section 27 of the Act and was only for execution of order dated 5.4.2007. Shri Wahane, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in such circumstances, seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Tribunal for redressal of grievance and prays that issues raised in the petition may be kept open. 4 We have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. In the backdrop of the above referred facts and in view of provisions of Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, it appears that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction conferred on it under Section 27 of the Act. We dispose of the petition as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. The issues raised in the petition are kept open. It is made clear that the observations/ conclusions recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order shall not come in the way of the Tribunal while re-considering the challenge, if raised to the decision taken by the respondents pursuant to the order dated 5.4.2007 passed by the Tribunal. JUDGE JUDGE khj