GARGACHARYA MAHADEO SANSTHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The present petition challenges order dated 24.03.2004 passed by the SDO, Khamgaon, in Ceiling Case No. 11/60/A(5)/1964-65, whereby permission to engage a counsel to represent the petitioner has been rejected. The petition also challenges the consequent order dated 31.03.2004 passed by the SDO, Khamgaon in the above matter on the ground that objections raised, which were received by post by the Authority, were peremptorily rejected without any reason whatsoever whereby, prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The petition also challenges subsequent judgment of the MRT dated 30.07.2014 in Ceiling Appeal No. 79/11-60-A/5/2003-04, which upholds the order of the SDO without considering the fact that the objections as admitted to have been received by the SDO in his order dated 31.03.2004, were rejected without any reason whatsoever.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the denial of legal representation by virtue of the order dated 24.03.2004, was clearly unjustified, in light of the nature of the proceedings involved, which needed legal assistance. He invites my attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohan Madhukar Sudame Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2012 4 MhLJ 218 which goes on to hold that a State law which bars advocates from appearing before Courts or tribunals would be repugnant to the provisions of Parliamentary legislation such as Advocates Act, 1961, which confers right to practice on such advocates in the Courts and tribunals. The order dated 24.03.2004, thus is clearly unsustainable and is accordingly quashed and set aside and so also the order dated 29.06.2016, as passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur in Ceiling Appeal No. REW/Ceiling/BUL-2/2014, which affirms the order dated 24.03.2004 as passed by the SDO, is also quashed and set aside. That having been done, it would therefore be necessary as consequence to the above, to set aside the order of the SDO dated 31.03.2004 as well as the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 30th July, 2014 passed in appeal, as these orders do not consider the objections as raised by the petitioner, which have been received by the SDO.