Bombay High Court
Sajid Khan S/O Jaf Ar Khan vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. The ... on 17 November, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1711WPs4691,4003.16-Judgment 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4691 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Sajid Khan S/o Jafar Khan, Aged about 42
years, Occupation - Business, R/o Muglai
Pura, Paratwada, Tehsil Achalpur, District-
Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Through the
Collector, Amravati.
ig 2. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Office, Tiwsa, District-
Amravati.
3. Regional Transport Officer, Regional
Transport Office, Amravati.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.T.H.Bewali, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Amit M. Balpande, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO. 4003 OF 2016
PETITIONER :- Imran Husain S/o Shabbir Husain, Aged
about 32 yrs., Occu-Business, R/o. Near
Popular Saw Mill, Pakija Colony, Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Through the
Collector, Amravati.
2. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Office, Amravati.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.T.H.Bewali, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms Tajwar Khan,Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2016 00:57:52 :::
1711WPs4691,4003.16-Judgment 2/5
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 17.11.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is similar
and since in both the petitions the petitioners have challenged the
orders passed by the respondent-authorities under section 48 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, they are heard together and are
decided by this common judgment.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, the writ petitions
are heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties.
3. By these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the orders
of the Tahsildar, dated 12/09/2016 and 23/06/2016, imposing penalty
on the petitioners under section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
Code for illegal transportation of the sand.
4. Inter alia, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that
the impugned orders are passed without giving an opportunity to the
petitioners, though section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
makes a provision for granting an opportunity. It is stated that before
1711WPs4691,4003.16-Judgment 3/5
imposing the penalty on the petitioners under section 48(7) of the
Code, the respondents have not served a notice on the petitioners
asking them to remain present before the Tahsildar and submit their
explanation. It is stated that without serving a show cause notice on the
petitioners-owners of the vehicles, that are seized by the respondents, it
is illegally held by the respondents that the petitioners have indulged in
the illegal transportation of the sand and penalty is imposed on them.
5.
The learned Assistant Government Pleaders have
supported the orders of the Tahsildar. They have relied on certain
documents that form a part of the record in the proceedings before the
Tahsildar. It is stated that notice was sought to be served on the
petitioners but the notice was returned back. It is stated that in respect
of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4003 of 2016, the petitioner was
personally present before the Tahsildar on 23/06/2016, but he did not
sign the proceedings. It is, however, fairly stated that the fact that the
petitioners were served with a notice before the impugned orders were
passed, cannot be demonstrated on the basis of the documents. It is
further fairly admitted that there is no mention in the order-sheet that
though the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4003 of 2016 was personally
present for hearing on 23/06/2016, he had refused to sign the
proceedings book.
1711WPs4691,4003.16-Judgment 4/5
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the documents annexed to the petition and the affidavit-in-
reply filed on behalf of the respondents, we find that no opportunity
was granted to the petitioners before the impugned orders were passed
under section 48 (7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. It was
necessary for the respondents to have granted an opportunity to the
petitioners to submit their explanation before imposing the penalty
under the provisions of section 48 (7) of the Code. In the case in Writ
Petition No.4691 of 2016, no notice was issued to the petitioner at all
and notice was sought to be served on the driver of the vehicle owned
by the petitioner, but the notice could not be served on the driver, as
the address of the driver was incomplete and hence the notice was
returned back. The statement made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondents in Writ Petition No.4003 of 2016 that the petitioner in the
said writ petition remained present before the Tahsildar on 23/06/2016
but he refused to sign the proceedings book and failed to tender his
explanation is not acceptable in the absence of any material to prove
the same. There is reason to believe in the circumstances of the case,
that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity to tender their
explanation before the impugned orders were passed.
1711WPs4691,4003.16-Judgment 5/5
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitions are
partly allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The
respondent-Tahsildar should pass appropriate orders after hearing the
petitioners. The petitioners undertake to remain present before the
Tahsildar on 28/11/2016 so that issuance of notice to the petitioners
could be dispensed with. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms
with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
