1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.5183 OF 2004 * Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation. Through: 1) The Superintending Engineer, Jaikwadi Project Circle, Aurangabad. 2) The Superintending Engineer, Osmanabad Irrigation Circle, Osmanabad. 3) The Executive Engineer, Osmanabad Medium Project Division, Osmanabad. ... Petitioners. Versus * Bhimrao s/o Naroji Bhole, Age 50 years, Occupation : Service, R/o O/o Sub Divisional Engineer, Irrigation Survey and Investigation Special Division, Bhoom, District Osmanabad. ... Respondent. -------- 2 Shri. Arun G. Kanade, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. B.R. Kedar, Advocate for respondent. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE: 28th APRIL 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Naresh H Patil, J.): 1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 2) The respondent - Bhimrao Bhole was working as Driver with the Irrigation Department prior to formation of the Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation. An accident took place on 8-1-1992 while the respondent was driving the vehicle. Proceedings were initiated in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and a criminal case was also lodged against the respondent. 3 3) In the year 2001 the petitioner initiated proceedings for recovery of the amount which the petitioner-Department had to pay consequent to the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. The said notice was challenged by the respondent before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 535 of 2001. By judgment and order dated 3rd January 2003 the Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal and the impugned orders were quashed and set aside. 4) The learned counsel for the petitioner raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Original Application before the Tribunal. Reliance is placed on judgment and order of Division 4 Bench of this Court (Coram: B.H. Marlapalle and D.G. Karnik, JJ.) dated 2nd September 2002 in Writ Petition Nos.2701 of 2001 and 3360 of 2001. In the said judgment it was held that for want of notification under section 15(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the Tribunal would not get jurisdiction to entertain application in respect of the employees of the Corporations. 5) The said view reflected in the judgment cited above is applicable to the present case also. For lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain original application we find that, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is required to be upheld. 5 6) The judgment and order dated 3-1-2003 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench, in Original Application No.535 of 2001 is quashed and set aside. We observe that the respondent would be entitled to resort to appropriate remedies as permissible to him in law in respect of the notice issued by the petitioner for recovery of amount. The process of recovery of amount initiated by the petitioner shall not be operative for a period of four weeks from today. All issues are kept open. 7) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Sd/- Sd/- (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.5183.04