Bombay High Court
Pradip Hairbhau Kale vs The Tahsildar, Dhamangaon ... on 21 August, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
wp1792.18+1821.18 (j) 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1792 OF 2018
PETITIONER : Liladhar Sheshrao Borkar
Aged about 56 years, Occ. Labour.
R/o. Old Dhamangao, Near NMukul Talkies,
Tah. Dhamangao Railway, District - Amravati
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1. The Tahsildar, Dhamangao Railway,
Office at Dhamangao Railwaya, District Amravati.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Chandur Railway,
Office at Chandur Railway, District Amravati
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 1821 OF 2018
PETITIONER : Pradip Haribhau Kale
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Labour.
R/o. Old Dhamangao, Near NMukul Talkies,
Tah. Dhamangao Railway, District - Amravati
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1. The Tahsildar, Dhamangao Railway,
Office at Dhamangao Railwaya, District Amravati.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Chandur Railway,
Office at Chandur Railway, District Amravati
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Alok Daga, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Damle, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP No.1792/2018
and Mr. Sagar Ashirgade, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in WP
No.1821/2018
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : A. G.GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 21/08/2021
wp1792.18+1821.18 (j) 2/3
(Oral Judgment)
Heard Mr. Alok Daga, learned counsel for the
petitioners in both petitions and the learned AGP appearing for
respondents.
2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3] The basic contention raised by Mr. Daga, learned
counsel for the petitioners, is that while passing the impugned
order dated 13.12.2017 and imposing a penalty, in exercise of
the power under Section 48(8) of the M.L.R Code, the
opportunity of hearing was not afforded. Though learned
counsel admits that by the communication dated 04.08.2017 in
Writ Petition No. 1821 of 2018, the petitioner was asked to
submit his reply, instead of doing so, an application for release
of the seized property was filed, in which the grounds raised
would constitute a sufficient reply. Learned counsel submits that
the grounds raised in the application have not been considered,
nor an opportunity of hearing was afforded.
wp1792.18+1821.18 (j) 3/3
4] The impugned order dated 13.12.2017 does not
depict that any submissions made by the petitioner ware
considered, or for that matter, an opportunity of hearing was
granted before imposing the penalty. That being the position,
the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is quashed
and set aside.
5] The petitioners in both the petitions are directed to
appear before the respondent authority on 27.08.2021, along
with their reply, consequent to which the authority shall
proceed to hear them on 30.08.2021 and pass an appropriate
order in the matter by 03.09.2021. The respondent to act upon
the net downloaded copy of this order to be placed before him
by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Petitions are
accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
