Madhusudan Gangaji Prabhu Desai and Others vs Chandrashekar Malkarnekar

A.P. Lavande, J.—Heard Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

Rule. By consent of the learned Counsel heard forthwith.

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 15/4/2010 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Mundkar Revision application No. 93/2003 and MISC/AAPPLN/8/96/CONDONE by which the revision preferred by the Respondent against the judgment and order dated 9/10/1995 passed by the Collector, South Goa and order of Mamlatdar dated 18/11/1988 has been allowed and the Respondent has been registered as mundkar.

Briefly the facts relevant for disposal of this petition are as under:

Girijabai Malkarnekar, the predecessor in title of the Respondent filed an application u/s 29 of the Mundkar Act before the Mamlatdar which was dismissed by order dated 18/11/1988 against which an appeal was preferred and the same was also dismissed by the Additional Collector of North Goa, Panaji. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal before the Collector, the original applicant died and the Respondent who is her legal representative was brought on record. The Respondent herein preferred Second Appeal to the Administrative Tribunal in the year 1996 which was suo motu converted to Revision application by the Administrative Tribunal in the year 2003. On 18/4/1997, the original Respondent Gangoji Pandurang Prabhu Dessai expired. Thereafter, it appears that an application was filed by the Respondent herein seeking leave to serve the unknown legal representatives of Gangoji P. Prabhu Dessai by publishing notice in the newspaper on the ground that legal representatives of Gangoji Prabhu were not known. Accordingly, notice was published. None appeared on behalf of the legal representatives of Gangoji for a considerable length of time. It was only in the year 2009 vakalatnama was filed on behalf Petitioner nos 1 and 9 and thereafter written arguments were filed on their behalf.

Although several grounds have been urged in support of the petition, the petition is liable to be allowed on a very short ground.

Admittedly, all the legal representatives of the Petitioners who were supposed to be joined as Respondents in the revision application were not joined in the revision application. It was the duty of the Respondent to join all the legal representatives as party Respondents in the revision application. On this ground alone the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. All the other rival contentions on behalf of the Petitioners as well as the Respondents are kept open. Since the Respondent does not dispute that the Petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Gangoji Pandurang Prabhu Dessai instead of directing the Respondent to file a fresh application, I deem it appropriate to permit the Respondent herein to bring on record the legal

Mr. Shivan Dessai submits that he will file vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioners herein before the Administrative Tribunal within a period of four weeks. The statement is accepted. The Respondent shall carry out amendment to the cause title of the revision application before the Administrative Tribunal within a period of three weeks from today.

The parties to appear before the Administrative Tribunal on 23/8/2011 at 10.30 a.m.

Considering that the proceedings before the Tribunal were filed in the year 1996, the Tribunal to dispose of the revision application in accordance with law expeditiously and in any case on or before 30/4/2012. All the contentions of the rival parties are kept open.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.