Friday, 01, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sanjay S/O. Purushottam ... vs State Of Maha., Ministry Of ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1102 Bom

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 1102 Bom
Judgement Date : 1 April, 2016

Bombay High Court
Sanjay S/O. Purushottam ... vs State Of Maha., Ministry Of ... on 1 April, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
                                                                                             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

                             
                            
      
   







 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter