Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Subhas Anna Kool, challenged the judgment and order dated 25-10-2005 of a learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.7404 of 2005. The single Judge had set aside an order dated 18-10-2005 passed by respondent No.2 (the Commissioner, Dairy Development), which permitted respondent No.1 (Daund Taluka Sahakari Dudh Uttapadak Sangh Maryadit, proposed) to open a bank account and collect milk in a specified area. The appellant contended that the order dated 18-10-2005 was an administrative order, and therefore, under Chapter XVII Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, a writ petition could not be entertained. Additionally, the appellant alleged that respondent No.1 had practised fraud on the court by representing that it had submitted a complete proposal to the Registrar of Taluka Dudh Sangh on 24-8-2005, when in fact the affidavits of 152 primary milk societies were submitted later. The Division Bench, consisting of R.M.S. Khandeparkar and Mrs. Roshan Dalvi, JJ., admitted the appeal and heard it forthwith by consent. The Court held that the order dated 18-10-2005 was indeed an administrative order, and thus the writ petition was not maintainable under the Rules. Regarding the fraud allegation, the Court found that the proposal was complete at the time of submission on 24-8-2005, and the affidavits were part of that proposal; therefore, no fraud was established. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment and order of the single Judge were set aside, and the order dated 18-10-2005 was restored.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Administrative Order - Chapter XVII Rule 18 of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 - The order permitting opening of bank account and collection of milk was an administrative order, not a quasi-judicial order, and therefore a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was not maintainable as per the Rules. The learned single Judge erred in entertaining the petition. (Paras 2-4) B) Fraud - Misrepresentation - Affidavits of Primary Societies - The allegation that respondent No.1 submitted affidavits of 152 primary milk societies after the proposal was submitted on 24-8-2005 was not substantiated. The proposal was complete in all respects at the time of submission, and the affidavits were part of the proposal. No fraud was established. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 18-10-2005 passed by respondent No.2 was an administrative order and therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Chapter XVII Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960; and whether the respondent No.1 had practised fraud on the court by misrepresenting the date of submission of affidavits.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order of single Judge dated 25-10-2005 set aside. Order dated 18-10-2005 passed by respondent No.2 restored.
Law Points
- Administrative order
- maintainability of writ petition
- fraud on court
- Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960 Chapter XVII Rule 18
- Letters Patent Appeal
