Swastik Infra Logic And Gorur ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 462 Bom

                                                         1/4
                                                                           29-WP-12873-2022.doc


         rrpillai                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                           WRIT PETITION NO. 12873 OF 2022

                        Swastik Infra Logic and Gorur Infra            ... Petitioner
                        Project (JV)
                                     vs.
                        The State of Maharashtra through the           ... Respondents
                        Prin. Secretary, Urban Development Dept.
                        and Anr.


                        Ms. Neeta Karnik i/b. Mr. Ambadas V. Chatuphale for the
                        Petitioner.
                        Mr. P. P. Kakade, GP a/w. Ms. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for
                        Respondent no. 1 - State.
                        Mr. Mandar Limaye for the Corporation.
                        Ms. Almas Sati i/b. Mr. Rajesh Bindra for the original
                        complainant (Intervenor).


                                              CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ. &
                                                       SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED : 12 JANUARY, 2023

P.C. :-

1. The Petitioner challenges the notice dated 30 September

2019 issued by the Corporation and directions dated 6 June

2019 issued by the Secretary, Urban Development Department

of the State of Maharashtra. Under the impugned notice the

Digitally Petitioner has been directed to deposit royalty. Failure to signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date:

2023.01.16 13:28:31 +0530

29-WP-12873-2022.doc

deposit the royalty as demanded would result in the security

deposit deducted from the bills being forfeited.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner,

learned counsel for the Corporation and the learned AGP.

3. The Petitioner is issued with the certificate by the

Executive Engineer of the Thane Municipal Corporation on 11

November 2014 that the Mining and Mineral has not been used

for commercial purposes. The Petitioner was allotted work for

providing, laying and commissioning of gravity sewers along

with construction of manholes for sewerage network under

PS-04 Sewerage zone in Thane City.

4. It was the case of the Respondent that if the mining and

mineral excavated is used for commercial purposes, as per

direction dated 6 June 2019 issued by the Secretary, Urban

Development Department, the royalty has to be charged.

5. The similar issue was subject matter of consideration

before the division bench of this court in Writ Petition No.

1429 of 2020 with connected Writ Petitions. The division

bench of this court, in judgment and order dated 13 February

2020, allowed the Writ Petition holding that if it is not proved

29-WP-12873-2022.doc

that the extracted mine and mineral are not used for

commercial purposes, then royalty could not have been

charged. The facts in the present matter are akin to the facts of

the aforesaid Writ Petition.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons recorded in the

judgment and order dated 13 February 2020 in Writ Petition

No. 1429 of 2020 with connected Writ Petitions, we follow the

same course :

(i) Impugned notice dated 30 September 2019 is

quashed and set aside.

(ii) From the bills remitted to the Petitioner if the State

Government is able to discern the exact quantity of the

excavated mine and minerals which has been

commercially exploited by the Petitioner, it is at liberty to

issue a fresh notice and by affording an opportunity to the

Petitioner, to deal with the same.

(iii) As the impugned notice is quashed and set aside

consequences shall follow and in case some amount is

deducted, the Petitioner would be entitled for refund of the

same.

29-WP-12873-2022.doc

(iv) The Security deposit shall be returned back to the

Petitioner within eight weeks from today.

(v) Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)