Bombay High Court
Prakash S/O Ramesh Panjalwar vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, ... on 18 December, 2018
Author: R. K. Deshpande
Bench: R. K. Deshpande, Vinay Joshi
1 903jgwpcp.339.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Civil Application No. 3114/2018
In
Writ Petition No. 7589/2018 (decided)
And
Writ Petition No. 8561/2018
And
Contempt Petition No. 339/2018
In
Writ Petition No. 7589/2018
**********
Civil Application No. 3114/2018
In
Writ Petition No. 7589/2018 (decided)
PETITIONER:- Prakash s/o Ramesh Panjalwar,
aged about 25 years, Occ. Self employed,
R/o. Ward No. 5, Tea House Chowk,
Bhiwapur, Tah. Bhiwapur, Dist. Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra through
Secretary in the Ministry of Revenue and
Forests, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 4000 32.
2. Tahsildar, Tahsil Office,
Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur.
3. Police Station Officer, Police Station,
Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur.
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 20:59:29 :::
2 903jgwpcp.339.18.odt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. V. V. Tiwari, Advocate h/f for Shri S. Bhutada, Advocate for
petitioner.
Shri A. M. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.
1 to 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With
Writ Petition No. 8561/2018
PETITIONER:- Prakash s/o Ramesh Panjalwar,
aged about 25 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Ward No. 5, Tea House Square,
Bhiwapur, Tah. Bhiwapur, Dist. Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra through
Secretary, Revenue and
Forest Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 4000 32.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer,
Bramhapuri, Dist. Chandrapur.
3. Tahsildar, Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur.
4. Police Station Officer, Police Station,
Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. V. V. Tiwari, Advocate h/f for Shri S. Bhutada, Advocate for
petitioner.
Shri A. M. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.
1 to 4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 20:59:29 :::
3 903jgwpcp.339.18.odt
Contempt Petition No. 339/2018
In
Writ Petition No. 7589/2018 (D)
PETITIONER:- Prakash s/o Ramesh Panjalwar,
aged about 25 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Ward No. 5, Tea House Square,
Bhiwapur, Tah. Bhiwapur, Dist. Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1. Shri Samir Mane,
Tahsildar, Nagbhid,
Dist. Chandrapur.
2. Kumar Singh Rathod,
Police Station Officer,
Police Station,
Nagbhid, Dist. Chandrapur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. V. V. Tiwari, Advocate h/f for Shri S. Bhutada, Advocate for
petitioner.
Shri A. M. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.
1 to 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE AND
VINAY JOSHI, JJ.
DATE OF JUDGMENT :- 18.12.2018
JUDGMENT (PER R. K. DESHPANDE, J.)
Civil Application No. 3114/2018 in Writ Petition No. 7589/2018 for modification of order dated 24.11.2018 is filed by Tahsildar.
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 20:59:29 :::
4 903jgwpcp.339.18.odt In writ petition No. 8561/2018 ,Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. Heard the learned counsels on Civil Application No. 3114/2018 filed in Writ Petition 7589/2018 also. The petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 37,800/- with Tahsildar, Nagbhid as per order dated 24.11.2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7589/2018. The petitioner has also furnished bond as was required under the said order. However, the vehicle of the petitioner, which was seized has not been released.
3. In the application for modification of order, it is pointed out that subsequently, in exercise of power conferred by the Rule 9(1)(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) (Amendment) Rules, 2017, a notice for penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been issued for release of the vehicle and therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioner is required to pay the said amount in addition to the amount of Rs. 37,800/- which is already deposited and then only the vehicle can be released.
4. It is an undisputed position that when the writ petition No.7589/2018 was disposed of finally on 24.11.2018, a notice for ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 20:59:29 ::: 5 903jgwpcp.339.18.odt penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- was not issued. The respondents can carry out the proceedings in respect of it against the petitioner who shall be entitled to file reply to such notice. If the petitioner is aggrieved by an adjudication by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the notice, he has an alternate remedy to file appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the appellate authority.
5. In view of the aforesaid position, we dispose civil application as well as writ petition by directing the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner which was seized and further permit respondents to carry out the proceedings pursuant to notice to carry it to its logical end. Non-payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall not be a ground to refuse to release the vehicle. We keep all the questions open to be agitated in appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The challenge to Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Extraction and Removal of Minor Minerals) (Amendment) Rules, 2017 subsequently shall also remain open.
6. In view of the above order, the Contempt Petition No. 339/2018 stands disposed of. The respondents are directed to immediately release the vehicle upon furnishing the bond to the satisfaction of the authority concerned.
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 20:59:29 :::
6 903jgwpcp.339.18.odt Civil Application No. 3114/2018 and Contempt Petition No. 339/2018 stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gohane
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 20:59:29 :::