bsb 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. 8564 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 8564 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 8564 OF 2007 Gopal Balu Padwal ... Petitioner V/s Patel Engineering Ltd., Engineers & Contractors & ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.M.Kamble for the petitioner. Mr. C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.3 to 6. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND J.N.PATEL AND J.N.PATEL AND SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. DATED: DATED: DATED: 22ND JANUARY, 2008. 22ND JANUARY, 2008. 22ND JANUARY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Learned A.G.P. filed an affidavit of Shri D.L.Kedare, Tahsildar, Taluka - Panvel, Dist. Raigad. 2. We propose to dispose of this petition at the stage of admission itself. Therefore, we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader in the matter. As for the decision of this petition, notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not required as the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.5 to supply copy of the report and the copy of the 2 decision taken therein on the representations/notices dated 28.12.2001 and 29.5.2002 submitted by the petitioner of which the subject matter relates to carrying out construction in Gat Nos.39/5, 43/2, 41/10, 41/16, 39/8, 39/2 of Village Borwai, Taluka Panvel, Dist. Raigad. 3. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in an earlier petition filed by him i.e. Writ Petition No.201 of 2003 where the Division Bench of this Court, on 27.3.2003, disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondent No.5 to take a decision in the matter of two representations/notices which have been sent to the authorities on 28.12.2001 and 29.5.2002 and this Court directed the authorities to take appropriate decision thereon as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the receipt of those representations/notices and the authorities will take into account all the facts and circumstances mentioned therein. This Court also observed that, it is open to the respondents to afford opportunity to respondent Nos.1 and 2 before taking decision in the matter. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that though he has been informed that the decision in the matter has been 3 taken, he has not been furnished with the copies of the report or the decision taken on his representations. 5. In the affidavit in reply, the respondent Tahsildar, Taluka Panvel, Dist. Raigad has disclosed that the Tahsildar, Taluka Panvel, Dist. Raigad had held a meeting on 28.7.2003 in order to comply with the order passed by this Court in the earlier petition and the minutes which are annexed to the reply as Exh.1 of the said meeting were communicated to the aforesaid concerned departments who responded by filing their respective replies which is at Exh.2 (collectively). But the Tahsildar Panvel has not yet decided such representation of the petitioner dated 29.5.2002 and has assured that now the office of the Tahsildar shall decide the representation of the petitioner within four weeks. 6. It is a sorry state of affairs which is reflected in this affidavit in reply filed by the Tahsildar. Not only that, the orders of this Court have not been complied with but the petitioner has been misled to understand that the decision is taken in the matter of his two representations as directed by this Court by order dated 27.3.2003 in Writ Petition No.201 of 2003. It has driven the petitioner to this Court for seeking 4 the copy of the decision/report. 7. In the affidavit in reply the Tahsildar has admitted that it has not yet decided such representations which was required to be decided preferably within three months from the receipt of those representations/notices as ordered by this Court. It not only amounts to disobedience of the orders of the Court which attracts action against the Tahsildar under Article 215 of the Constitution of India as also under the Contempts of Courts Act. 8. In the facts and circumstances, it has been canvassed by the learned Asstt. Government Pleader that the officers are often getting transferred and probably the concerned Tahsildar on being transferred, his successor lost track of the case, cannot be over-ruled and, therefore, there is no wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court. Unfortunately, such a explanation is not offered in the affidavit in reply tendered to the Court today. The Tahsildar even did not feel it necessary to tender his apology to the Court. 9. We are of the view that no purpose would be served in initiating contempt proceeding against the Tahsildar but this does not mean that the authorities should be 5 let off without reminding them of the responsibilities and particularly to hold them accountable for non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court. 10. The non-compliance of the order has forced the petitioner to again approach this Court by filing the writ petition which definitely requires the petitioner to incur expenses for meeting the cost of litigation and the petitioner in this case has been forced to approach this Court on two occasions i.e. in the year 2003 and thereafter when he was misinformed that decision has been taken, by filing this petition. Therefore, ends of justice would meet if the Tahsildar is ordered to pay cost so as to compensate the petitioner. We, therefore, dispose of this petition by accepting the contention in para 5 of the affidavit in reply filed by Shri D.L.Kedare, Tahsildar, as an undertaking to this Court and quantify that a sum of Rs.10,000/- would be paid by the Tahsildar, Talukar Panvel, Dist. Raigad, as costs to the petitioner. 11. We further make it clear that it will be open for the State of Maharashtra to recover the cost of Rs.10,000/- from the person who was at the relevant time holding the post of Tahsildar, Taluka Panvel, Dist. Raigad and failed to comply with the orders of this 6 Court for taking a decision in the case of representations made by the petitioner. 12. We direct the State of Maharashtra to deposit the cost which we have quantified i.e. a sum of Rs.10,000/- in this Court within two weeks from today. On the cost being deposited, the petitioner would be entitled to withdraw the same. 13. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (J.N. (J.N. (J.N. PATEL, J.) PATEL, J.) PATEL, J.) (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.)