Kiran Jagnnath Katale vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2385 Bom

                                                              945wp6491.odt
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                945 WRIT PETITION NO. 6491 OF 2017

        Kiran s/o Jagannath Katale    ...  Petitioner
        Age 37 years, 
        Occu: Business/Agri
        R/o Chandgiri Post Jkhuri Tq. 
        nashik Dist. Nashik

        VERSUS

  1.  The State of Maharashtra
      Through the Principal 
      Secretary,
      Revenue and Forest Department 
      Mantralaya, Mumbai 32

  2. The Collector, Ahmednagar

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

  4. The Tahsildar, Kopargaon 


 Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Dhage Hemant U 
 AGP for Respondents State: Mr. A. R. Kale


                               CORAM   :  R. M. BORDE & 
                                         K. L. WADANE, JJ.
                                DATE   : 5th May, 2017

 JUDGMENT (Per R. M. Borde, J.):                     

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. With the consent of the parties, taken up for

final disposal.

945wp6491.odt

3. The petitioner is objecting to the notice

issued by the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar on

03.05.2017 calling upon the petitioner as to why

the amount deposited by him towards 3/4th amount

i.e. Rs.35,67,615/- shall not be forfeited on

account of delay of two days caused in depositing

the amount.

4. The petitioner has already deposited 1/4th

amount of Bid value amounting to Rs.11,89,205/- on

29.03.2017. Whereas, he has deposited further

amount of Rs.35,67,615/- on 10.04.2017. The

petitioner has thus deposited the total bid amount

with the respondents. Delay of two days caused in

depositing the amount can be condoned in view of the

peculiar facts of this case. The respondents are

thus directed not to forfeit the amount and the

notice dated 03.5.2017 issued by the Additional

Commissioner, Ahmednagar stands quashed and set

aside. The petitioner shall be permitted to continue

with the contract.

5. This order shall not be considered to be a

945wp6491.odt precedent to be followed in other matter.

6. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. In the

facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be

no order as to costs.

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (R. M. BORDE, J. )

JPC