Bombay High Court
Shri Yogesh S/O Udaram Gokhe vs State Of Maharashtra, Ministry Of ... on 12 April, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
wp1409.15.J.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1409 OF 2015
Shri Yogesh s/o Udaram Gokhe
Aged 43 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Prabhag No.1, Khapa,
Tahsil Saoner, District Nagpur. ....... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1] State of Maharashtra
Ministry of Revenue and Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] District Collector, Nagpur.
3] Tehsildar, Saoner,
Tah. Saoner, Dist. Nagpur.
4] Circle Officer, Khapa,
Tehsil Saoner, Dist. Nagpur. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri V.S. Kukday, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
th APRIL, 2017.
DATE: 12
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2] On 18.03.2015 this Court had passed an order as
wp1409.15.J.odt 2/3
under:
Issue notices for final disposal of the matter,
returnable on 24.04.2015.
Learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
The contention of Shri Kukday, the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that, there was no
agreement or lease for excavation of sand between the
respondents and the petitioner. He further submits that
there is no finding recorded in any of the reports that
the trucks owned by the petitioner were found on the
spot carrying or excavating the sand. He submits that
there is absolutely no basis for imposing the penalty.
The respondents to file affidavit along with the
reports, if any, on or before the returnable date.
There shall be interim stay in terms of prayer
clause (iii) of the petition.
The petitioner to furnish solvent security to the
satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for
an amount of Rs.3,41,88,000/- within a period of four
weeks from today. If the security is not furnished within
a period of four weeks, the interim order shall stand
vacated without reference to the Court.
3] The respondent was granted time to file reply.
Although, reply is filed by the respondent, the factual aspects
urged before this Court do not find any response in the reply.
Unless the findings recorded on these aspects, the final order
could not have been passed by the respondents. It is a matter
where fresh enquiry is to be made after hearing the parties
wp1409.15.J.odt 3/3
concerned.
4] The petitioner has applied for modification of the
order dated 18.03.2015 to the extent it directs furnishing of
solvent security for an amount of Rs.3,41,88,000/-. It is urged by
Shri Kukday, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner does not own any property in Nagpur, and therefore,
Tahsildar is unable to issue any solvency certificate. In view of the
fact that fresh enquiry is required to be ordered by setting aside
the impugned order, the question of furnishing solvent security at
present does not at all arise. The order to that extent is recalled.
5] In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order
dated 06.02.2015 passed by the Tahsildar is hereby quashed and
set aside. The Tahsildar is directed to conduct fresh enquiry,
keeping in view the contentions, which are raised before this
Court. After hearing the parties concerned, the matter be decided
afresh. The petitioner to appear before the Tahsildar
on 24.04.2017. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE
NSN
