1 Lgc. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2243 OF 2010 Jagdish Shiva Hegde : Petitioner versus The Resident Dy. Collector & Competent Authority Thane & ors. : Respondents. Mr. V Y Sanglikar for the Petitioner. Mr. A B Vagyani, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR, R. M. SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 20th April 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr. A B Vagyani, AGP, waives notice for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as the Secretary, Public Works Department, who is not made party Respondent to the writ petition. 3. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order of the District Judge-I at Palghar dated 19.9.2009 in Regular Civil Appeal No.3 of 2009 which in turn challenged the order passed by the Resident Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Thane dated 31.1.2009 passed in Revision 2 No.28 of 1994. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner before this Court is that although the action has been initiated against the Petitioner on the ground that he was in unauthorised occupation of the suit premises., that action was proceeded against the petitioner solely on the basis of the judgment and decree dated 20.2.1973. 5. In so far as this grievance of the Petitioner is concerned, the same is accepted by the Respondents through counsel appearing before this Court. If it is so, it would necessarily follow that the orders passed by the competent authority are vitiated as the above said Decree of the Court alone was not sufficient to assume that the Petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the public premises. 6. Since this is agreed position between the parties, we dispose of this writ petition by setting aside the impugned decision as well as the orders passed by the competent authority. In stead, we relegate the Petitioner before the competent authority who in turn shall issue fresh show cause notice accompanied by necessary documents in support of the charge that the Petitioner is in 3 unauthorised occupation of the suit premises, if so advised. 7. We may notice that this is the second remand in respect of the proposed action against the Petitioner. We fail to understand as to why the competent authority is not able to proceed against the Petitioner by complying all the relevant formalities. We express our displeasure and sense of concern about the manner in which the action has been proceeded against the Petitioner, even though the authority was of the view that the Petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the public premises. We hope and trust that on this occasion, the competent authority would take all precautions to ensure that necessary procedure is complied with and the proposed action against the petitioner is taken to its logical end expeditiously and in any case not later than three months from today. 8. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Secretary, Public Works Department for information and necessary action. 9. Petition is disposed of on the above terms. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)