Advocates:
['SHIVKUMAR DAGDUSINGH THAKUR', 'S G NIGOTS G NIGOT', 'S G NIGOT', 'SHARAD W GHATE', 'FOR/R-SOLE', 'SHANTANU S GHATE', 'ARUN PANJABRAO GIRHE']

1

wp6896-14.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION No.6896 OF 2014

Shri Lekhraj s/o Motiram Telang

-Vrs.-

MOIL Limited, Nagur thr. Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director.

_______________________________________________________________________

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,

appearances, Court's orders of directions

Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. S.D. Thakur, counsel for petitioner.

Mr. S.S. Ghate, counsel for respondent.

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND

P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATED : 6 ^th OCTOBER, 2015

Heard advocate Thakur for petitioner and advocate

Ghate for respondent.

2.

Shri Thakur submits that in present petition

challenging is restricted only to the correctness of procedure

followed by appellate authority while passing impugned order.

3.

Impugned order dated 7.2.2014 communicates to

petitioner the decision by Board of Directors of MOIL Ltd. in

its 297^th meeting held on 19.1.2014. It reads thus -

“In the 297^th meeting of the Board of Directors

of MOIL Ltd., held on 19.01.2014 “the Board

concluded that no fresh/new points have been

brought out in appeal on 28.01.2013 & letter

dt. 25.10.2013 to merit reconsideration. As

such, it was decided to uphold the penalty

imposed.”

4.

Shri Ghate however, points out that the Disciplinary

Authority and Appellate Authority happens to be the same and

2

wp6896-14.odt

therefore the appeal is required to be placed before Board of

Directors. He further contends that the reasons can be

demonstrated from records and no prejudice is caused to

petitioner.

5.

It is settled position that reasons as contained in

appellate order only can be looked into. Additional material

on the basis of which reasons can be worked out is not

available for consideration in such challenge.

6.

Impugned order specifically shows the conclusion of

Board of Directors that no fresh/new points were brought

before it.

7.

It is apparent that appeal was on material on

record i.e. on points which were before original authority and

no new points/fresh points were raised. But merely because no

new points/fresh points were raised, the appeal cannot be

held to be without merit. Impugned order finds appeal without

merit as no new points or no fresh points have been raised.

8.

We, therefore, find substance in contention of

petitioner and hold that impugned order does not contain any

application of mind. This court while issuing notice on

12.12.2014 has recorded this statement of advocate Thakur.

Respondent was, therefore, aware that it has to satisfy this

Court about reasons or lack thereof in impugned order. Despite

this, though reply affidavit has been placed on record, copy of

resolution passed by Board of Directors on 19.1.2014 is not

made available. In any case, that resolution is not

communicated to the petitioner.

9.

Impugned order dated 7.2.2014 is, therefore,

3

wp6896-14.odt

quashed and set aside. The appeal filed by petitioner is

restored before the respondent appellate authority for its

disposal according to law. Writ petition is thus partly disposed

of. No costs.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Hirekhan