Bombay High Court
Pravin Lahanuji Shevale vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate, ... on 26 April, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1 judg. wp 1495.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.1495 of 2016.
Pravin Lahanuji Shevate,
aged about 40 years, Occ.-Business,
R/o.-Lashkaribagh, Nagpur-17. .... Petitioner.
Versus
1] The Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Morshi, Tah. Morshi, District Amravati.
2] The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office,
Warud, Tah. Warud, District Nagpur. .... Respondents.
Shri S.D. Chande, Adv for petitioner.
Shri A.M. Balpande, AGP for resp.nos.1 and 2.
Coram : S.B. Shukre, J.
th
Dated : 26
April, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent.
2] The reply filed by the learned Counsel for the respondent no.2
is taken on record.
2 judg. wp 1495.16.odt
3] The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the only
reason for which Tahsilder, Wardha by his order dated 24-11-2015
imposed penalty of Rs. 60,800/- is that the truck was being plied
by its driver without the driver being in possession of valid license.
I have gone through this order and I do not find such reason having
been mentioned in it. The reason mentioned in this order is that the
truck in question was found to be carrying two brass sand without
the driver being in possession of the royalty pass. The next
contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the truck
was stopped and action was taken when it was not carrying any sand
and was entirely empty. But, the order dated 24-11-2015, does not
support this contention. It states that the truck was intercepted at
the time when it was found to be transporting two brass of sand.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader at this juncture has
invited our attention to the copy of the panchanama filed along with
reply of respondent no.2. The copy of the panchanama also shows
that at the relevant time the truck was found to be carrying sand in
its body.
4] The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the Sub-Divisional Officer, Morshi while upholding the order of
the learned Tahsildar has not considered his case and he further
submits that if such orders are upheld by this Court it could amount
3 judg. wp 1495.16.odt
to promoting dictatorship by the bureaucracy. I must say that the
argument is unkind apart from it being not consistent with the
available record. In fact, it appears to me that the petitioner has
given incorrect instructions to his learned Counsel. The order dated
14-12-2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Morshi clearly
notes the fact that the driver of the truck was not possessed of the
transit pass at the time when he was found to be carrying sand by
the truck in question.
5] The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the provision of Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
Code, has not been followed in this case while imposing the
penalty. On going through the impugned order, I find that the
learned Tahsildar has imposed maximum permissible fine which is
up to five times of the quantity of the sand found to be transported
in breach of the conditions of the license and so no illegality could
be seen. Of course, the learned Counsel for the petitioners further
submits that no opportunity of hearing on this count was granted to
him, but this is not borne out from the record.
6] In the circumstances, I find that no substance in this Writ
Petition. Writ Petition stands dismissed.
4 judg. wp 1495.16.odt
7] Rule is discharged.
JUDGE
Deshmukh
