Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 1102 Bom
Judgement Date : 1 April, 2016
wp1225.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1225/2016
PETITIONER: Sanjay s/o Purushottam Khobragade,
Aged 43 years, Occ : Business,
R/o Durga Chowk, Kamptee, Tehsil Kamptee,
District Nagpur.
ig ...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, Ministry of
Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32 through its Secretary.
2. District Collector, Nagpur.
3. Tahsildar, Kuhi, Tahsil Kuhi,
District : Nagpur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri V.S. Kukday, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs. B.H. Dangre, G.P. for respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 01.04.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is
heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the
State Government, dated 29.3.2014 rejecting the prayer made by the
wp1225.16.odt
petitioner for refund of the amount for not extracting the sand due to the
absence of permission from the officers of the Forest Department.
Inter alia, it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the
impugned order, dated 29.3.2014 is an unreasoned order and does not
record any reason for rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner. It is
stated that in the absence of any reasons in the order, the petitioner is not
able to gauge as to why the application made by the petitioner is rejected.
It is stated that if the respondents record reasons for the rejection of the
prayer for refund of the amount, the petitioner would be entitled to take
up appropriate proceedings.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find
that the impugned order is sans reasons. No reason whatsoever is
recorded by the State Government while rejecting the application made
by the petitioner. It was expected of the State Government to record at
least some reasons in the impugned order so that the petitioner could
have been aware as to why his application was rejected. In the absence of
any reasons, the petitioner is not able to effectively challenge the order.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The State
Government is directed to take a decision on the application of the
petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months.
wp1225.16.odt
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!