Bombay High Court
M/S Shri Hariom Krishi Kendra, ... vs State Of Maharashtra, In The Ministry Of ... on 22 October, 2018
Author: S.B. Shukre
Bench: S.B. Shukre
wp7056.18.odt 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No.7056 OF 2018
(M/s. Shri Hariom Krishi Kendra, Prop. Shri Manikrao s/o. Ganaji Yenchilwar Vs. The State
of Maharashtra, in the Ministry of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai, through its
Secretary and others)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Shri V.S. Kukday, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S.M. Ukey, Addl. G.P. for Respondents.
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
nd OCTOBER, 2018.
DATE : 22 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Pleader for respondents, who appears by waiving notices.
Learned Addl.G.P. points out that a similar issue though it pertains to an order passed under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (in short, "MLR Code") relating to an order of penalty passed after confiscation, has nevertheless been referred to the larger Bench for deciding the issue as to whether or not such an order passed under Section 48(8) of the MLR Code would be amenable to challenge before the Division Bench. This has been done by this Court in Writ Petition No.1792/2018 by the order passed on 31 st July, 2018. According to him, this petition involving a challenge to the order of penalty passed under Section 48(7) of the MLR Code would also have to be referred to the larger Bench for adjudication upon the question of maintainability of the petition before the Division Bench or the Bench ::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2018 00:40:15 ::: wp7056.18.odt 2/2 presided over by a Single Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken an objection contending that the issue involved in this petition is different.
I find that the issue involved in this petition is quite similar, but certainly not identical to the issue involved in the matter under reference. The similarity lies in the challenge made to an order imposing penalty and the dis-similarity is about the provision of law resorted to in the present matter. This provision of law is of Section 48(7) of the MLR Code, unlike Section 48(8) involved in Writ Petition No.1792/2018. But, both these issues would have a bearing upon each other and, therefore, I am of the considered view that this petition too would have to be tagged along with Writ Petition No.1792/2018. Registry to do the needful accordingly.
Meanwhile, having considered the submission that huge penalty of Rs.2,13,44,400/- has been imposed upon the petitioner without granting any hearing, I am of the view that at this stage, interim stay to the direction of depositing the amount can be granted in order to prevent any prejudice being caused to the petitioner till the matter is listed before the larger Bench and accordingly the interim stay is granted.
Steno copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
JUDGE DWW ::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2018 00:40:15 :::