:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO. 693 OF 2012

Shri Ulhas Rayu Naik Dessai,

son of Rayu Naik Dessai,

major of age, resident of House

No.63, Pariecotto, Comba,

Cuncolim, Salcete Goa.

…

Petitioner

V e r s u s

1. Devalaya of 'Shree Shantadurga

Kunkolikarin' of Fatorpa,

Quepem Goa.

Through its Attorney, having its

Office at Fatorpa, Quepem,

South Goa.

2. Administrative Tribunal of Goa,

Panaji Goa.

Near Dada Vaidya Hospital,

Panaji Market.

…

Respondents

Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. M. Furtado,

Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sudin M. S. Usgaonkar, Advocate for the respondent no.1.

CORAM : F. M. REIS, J

DATE : 16

^th AUGUST, 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent no.1.

:2:

2. A short point for consideration in the above Writ

Petition is whether the learned Administrative Tribunal whilst

disposing of the preliminary objection raised by the

respondent no.1 to the effect that the appeal preferred by the

petitioner was not competent as it challenges an order

passed by the General Body under Article 26(2) of the

Devasthan Regulation is justified or not.

3.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner

filed an application raising an objection to the list of the

Mahajans which was published in the year 2007 and to

include the petitioner as a mahajan therein. Such application

was addressed to the Managing Committee in terms of the

provisions of the Devasthan Regulation. It appears that the

petitioner was informed orally about the decision taken by

the Managing Committee rejecting his application. The said

application was dated 11.01.2007. Being aggrieved by the

said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the

Administrator. The learned Administrator by order dated

04.01.2010 rejected the said appeal on the ground that it

was not maintainable. It was inter-alia held therein that such

appeal would lie before the Administrative Tribunal. In the

meanwhile, the General Body of the Devasthan by order

:3:

dated 14.12.2009 informed the petitioner that his application

came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the

petitioner in terms of the Article 26(2) of the Devasthan

Regulation preferred an appeal before the Administrative

Tribunal. In such proceedings, the respondent no.1 raised

the preliminary objection to the effect that the appeal itself

was not maintainable. The learned Tribunal by the impugned

order dated 13.04.2012 allowed the said objection and

consequently, dismissed the appeal as being not

maintainable. Being aggrieved by the said order, the

petitioner has preferred the above Writ Petition.

4.

From the facts as narrated herein above without

going into the merits of the rival contentions, it appears that

on account of mis-appreciation of the relevant provisions of

law as applicable in connection with the appeal preferred

against the order passed by the Managing Committee in

terms of the provisions of Article 26(2) of the Devasthan

Regulation, the petitioner had originally preferred such appeal

before the Administrator. No doubt, taking into consideration

the order passed by the Administrator, the question of filing

such appeal against an order passed by the Managing

Committee would not be justified. But however, such appeal

:4:

would lie before the General Body in terms of the provisions

of Article 26(2) of the Devasthan Regulation. It is the

contention of Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioner that the said order passed by the

General Body dated 14.12.2009 was an order passed in an

appeal preferred by the petitioner. On the other hand,