Bombay High Court
Vijay Dashrath Shirbhate vs State Of Maharashtra, In The ... on 22 January, 2018
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik
W.P.No.7293/2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.7292 OF 2017
Petitioner : Mahendra s/o Uttamrao Bhatkule,
Aged 48 years, Occupation : Business,
R/o Ramanagar, Morshi,
Tehsil Morshi, District Amravati.
-- Versus --
Respondents : 1] State of Maharashtra,
In the Ministry of Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
Through its Secretary.
2] District Collector,
Amravati.
with
WRIT PETITION NO.7293 OF 2017
Petitioner : Ashok s/o Jaishriramji Khawale,
Aged 58 years, Occupation : Business,
R/o Near Police Station, Morshi,
Tehsil Morshi, District Amravati.
-- Versus --
Respondents : 1] State of Maharashtra,
In the Ministry of Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
Through its Secretary.
2] District Collector,
Amravati.
with
WRIT PETITION NO.7294 OF 2017
Petitioner : Vijay Dashrath Shirbhate,
Aged 56 years, Occupation : Business,
R/o Petapura, Morshi,
Tehsil Morshi, District Amravati.
-- Versus --
Respondents : 1] State of Maharashtra,
In the Ministry of Revenue & Forest,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
Through its Secretary.
2] District Collector,
Amravati.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri V.S. Kukday, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ
DATE : 22
nd JANUARY, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical, they
are heard together and they are decided by this common judgment.
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.
By these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the order
passed by the respondent no.2 - Collector, Amravati cancelling the mining
leases of the petitioners.
Inter alia, it is stated on behalf of the petitioners that the
impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside, as before passing of
the same, the respondent no.2 had not granted any opportunity, whatsoever,
to the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners were not served even
with the show cause notice before the impugned orders were passed.
Shri Fulzele, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 - Collector, Amravati fairly admits
that before the issuance of the impugned orders, a show cause notice was not
served upon the petitioners. It is stated that if this Court is inclined to quash
the orders, the respondent-Collector would take appropriate action in
accordance with law.
Admittedly, since the petitioners were not served with the show
cause notice before the drastic action of cancellation of their mining leases
was taken by the respondent no.2 - Collector, it would be necessary to quash
and set aside the impugned orders as it was necessary for the Collector to
have at least served the show cause notice on the petitioners before their
mining leases were cancelled.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitions are allowed.
The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The Collector, Amravati is
free to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
*sdw
