Upekshit Samaj Kalyan Samitee and Another vs Shivdas Patiram Ramteke and Another

Savant R.M., J.—Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard.

The above writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India lays a challenge to three ordeRs. First being the order dated 23/3/2004, by which order the Appeal was directed to be proceeded ex parte against both the respondents. The second being the order dated 22/1/2007 by which the preliminary issues were decided by the School Tribunal, and lastly the Judgment and order dated 15/7/2010 by which the Appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 herein came to be allowed.

The principal ground of challenge is that the Judgment and order dated 15/7/ 2010 has been passed by the School Tribunal without affording an opportunity to the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that in respect of the order dated 23/3/2004, the petitioners had filed an application dated 26/9/2007 for setting aside the said order. The said application was served on the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 had accordingly filed his reply to the said application. However, the said application was kept pending till the year 2010. On 1/7/ 2010, the said application came to be rejected and the Appeal was posted for judgment on 15/7/2010, on which day the judgment was pronounced. In my view, since the application was already filed by the petitioners on 26/9/2007 for setting aside the order dated 23/3/2004, it was incumbent on part of the School Tribunal to decide the said application and not to keep it pending. However, as the facts disclose, though the application was filed in the year 2007, the same was disposed of on 1 /7/2010 and immediately on the next date of hearing the judgment was pronounced. In my view, this has resulted in the petitioner not being given a proper opportunity to prosecute the said Appeal and thereby the principles of natural justice have been violated. It is not a case where the petitioner has kept quiet after the said order dated 23/3/2004 and had not taken any steps for setting aside the said order of the School Tribunal. The Tribunal could not have decided it after three years and immediately thereafter on the next date pronounced judgment. In that view of the matter, the judgment and Order of the School Tribunal is required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and the matter is relegated back to the School Tribunal for a de novo consideration.

In so far as the filing of the written statement is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 states that this Court may fix a time bound schedule so that the Appeal can be disposed of within a particular time frame. In my view, the interest of justice requires that the petitioners be given an opportunity to file their written statement. Hence, the following directions.

(i) The impugned Judgment and Order dated 15/7/2010 passed by the School Tribunal is quashed and set aside and the matter is relegated back to the School Tribunal for a de novo consideration of the Appeal filed by the respondent No. 1.

(ii) The petitioners to file their written statement by 10/8/2011. The Trial Court thereafter to hear and decide the Appeal by 31/12/2011 by giving proper opportunity to each of the parties.

(iii) The School Tribunal to decide all the issues together.

Rule is accordingly made absolute with parties to bear their respective costs.