:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.8428 OF 2007 NO.8428 OF 2007 NO.8428 OF 2007 B.A.Shrivastav ..Petitioner Vs. The Union of India & Anr. ..Respondents Mr.M.S.Karnik for petitioner. Mr.B.A.Shrivastav with Vinod Joshi for respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & :- V.C.DAGA & :- V.C.DAGA & MRS.MRIDULA MRS.MRIDULA MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. BHATKAR,JJ. BHATKAR,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 20TH MARCH,2009 : 20TH MARCH,2009 : 20TH MARCH,2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for parties. This petition is directed against the order dated 2nd March, 2007 passed by Assistant Government Counsel & Competent Authority, Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Notary Cell. The basic challenge to the order is that the said order is in breach of principles of natural justice and without following the procedure provided in Rule 13. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents tried to support this order contending that the order cannot be interfered with. During the course of hearing, both parties advanced rival submissions and ultimately arrived at consensus that the petitioner can be given a fresh hearing dispensing the procedure laid down under Rule 13, subject to the conditions enumerated in Clause 3 to 5 of the affidavit. :2: 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection to follow said route suggested in the affidavit filed by petitioner. 4. In the above view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order dated 2nd March, 2007 and direct respondents/Competent Authority to hear the petitioner dispensing with the request of Rule 13, subject to following conditions. (i) The report dated 19th April, 2004 of the learned District and Sessions Court, Nashik, which is at Exhibits ’A’ and ’B’ to the petition, is to be construed as a complaint or charge; (ii) The explanation offered by the petitioner at Exhibit ’C’ to be considered as a reply to the said charge; (iii) Petitioner may be permitted to submit an additional explanation, if required; (iv) The Respondent No.1/appropriate Government would afford petitioner or petitioner’s Advocate a personal hearing on such date as may be fixed by appropriate Government. (v) The appropriate Government on the basis of the written explanation and the submissions made at the time of personal hearing shall pass a reasoned order. 5. Needless to mention that the Competent Authority is expected to decide the matter within three months from the date of receipt of this order by a reasoned order following principles of natural justice. :3: 6. Both parties undertake to communicate this order to all the concerned authority hearing the matter on remand. Petition stands disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (MRIDULA (MRIDULA (MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) BHATKAR,J.) BHATKAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)