Ajay Rajendra Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 860 Bom

                                                                               11_WP306417.odt


         
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 3064 OF 2017

Ajay Rajendra Pawar
Age: 24 years, Occu.: Business and Agri.,
R/o Ganpati Matha, Warje Malwadi,
Tq. Havali, Dist. Pune.                                             ..PETITIONER

               VERSUS

1.  State of Maharashtra
     Through its Secretary,
     Revenue Department, Mantralaya,
     Mumbai - 32.

2.  The Collector,
     Collector Office, Ahmednagar.

3.  The Additional Collector,
     Collector Office, Ahmednagar.                                  ..RESPONDENTS

                                    ....
Mr. K.N. Shermale, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A.P. Basarkar, A.G.P. for respondents.
                                    ....

                                                       CORAM :  S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 20th MARCH, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Issue notice for final disposal to the respondents. Learned

A.G.P. waives service of notice for all respondents.

1 / 5

11_WP306417.odt

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of both sides.

3. This writ petition challenges the legality and correctness of the

order dated 02nd March, 2017 passed by the Additional Collector,

Ahmednagar, whereby a direction has been issued to the petitioner that

amount of Rs.3,50,836/- be deposited by the petitioner, which amount

was not deposited by him within stipulated period of time and which was

liable to be confiscated.

4. It is so happened that on 21 st December, 2016, at village

Gavhanewadi, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar, a public auction was

held for sale of sand weighing 70 bras sand excavated from the riverbed.

Alongwith other purchasers, this petitioner also took part in the public

auction and his bid, which was the highest one, was accepted by the

authorities for Rs.14,03,344/-. The petitioner was communicated

accordingly and he was called upon to deposit within twenty-four hours of

20th December, 2016, 1/4th amount of the auction price, which came to

Rs.3,50,836/-. So, the 1/4th amount was to be deposited by the petitioner

before the closing of office hours of 21 st December, 2016. The petitioner,

accordingly started from Pune to Shrigonda for depositing the 1/4 th

2 / 5

11_WP306417.odt

amount by vehicle, a Fortuner bearing no. Mh-12 JQ-3344. But on the

way to Shrigonda, his vehicle met with an accident in which, the vehicle

got damaged but the petitioner escaped unhurt. The petitioner thereafter

did not continue his journey to Shrigonda by another vehicle or by

adopting the alternate mode of transportation and accordingly the said

1/4th amount which is Rs.3,50,836/- was not deposited by him within the

stipulated period of time. The petitioner made an application to the

Additional Collector seeking extension of time, but, that was rejected by

the Additional Collector and not only that, the Additional Collector

directed him by order passed on 02 nd March, 2017 to deposit this amount

forthwith as it was to be confiscated to the State. Being aggrieved by this

order, the petitioner before this Court filed the writ petition.

5. The first submission of learned Counsel for petitioner is that in

same circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim

protection to the petitioner and therefore this Court should also grant

some protection to the petitioner. In support, the petitioner has placed on

record the copy of the order passed on 08 th March, 2017 in Writ Petition

No. 3080/2017 (Balaji Sand Suppliers Vs. State of Maharashtra and

Others). According to learned A.G.P., facts of said writ petition are

different and therefore no reliance can be placed upon it. I think learned

3 / 5

11_WP306417.odt

A.G.P. is right in his submission. In Writ Petitioner No. 3081/2017, the

Division Bench of this Court has recorded the finding of fact that deposit

was well within the time. In the instant case, it is admitted position that

deposit was never made, therefore, no assistance could be sought from

said order.

6. The second submission of learned Counsel for petitioner is that

because of the accident to his Fortuner vehicle, the petitioner was

prevented from depositing the amount. However, as rightly pointed out

by the learned A.G.P., the facts noted in the panchanama dated 25 th

December, 2016 do not support such contention. This panchanama

clearly states that the petitioner had emerged unhurt from this accident

and therefore there was no reason for the petitioner to stop his onward

journey towards Shrigonda. The petitioner could have very well availed

service of some other vehicle for going to Shrigonda and deposit the

amount well within the stipulated time. He did not do so and therefore I

am of the view that the learned Additional Collector has rightly rejected

the justification for not depositing the amount will within the time.

7. The third submission of the learned Counsel for petitioner is

that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. In fact,

4 / 5

11_WP306417.odt

there are admitted facts in this case, which clearly go against the

petitioner and therefore, there was no reason for the Additional Collector

to have granted any personal hearing to the petitioner and in this

backdrop it was for him to consider the application filed by the petitioner

in the light of the facts and circumstances brought on record, which he

has done, and rightly so. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the

submission of learned Counsel for petitioner.

8. There is also an issue raised by the learned Counsel for

petitioner as raised in Writ Petition No. 11196 of 2015, order of which has

been passed by this Court on 27 th December, 2016 at Mumbai directing

some adjustments to be made by the authorities from the bid amount

already deposited with them. With due respect, I must say that this is not

an issue involved in the present case and if the petitioner is desirous of

getting any relief in this regard, he may approach the appropriate Bench.

9. In the result, I do not see any merit in this petition. Petition

stands dismissed with costs. Rule is discharged.

( S.B. SHUKRE, J. ) SSD

5 / 5