Bombay High Court
Pandurang S/O Vilas Chavan And Another vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... on 30 January, 2019
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
wp5508.18.odt
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5508 OF 2018
Pandurang s/o Vilas Chavan and another
-Vs.-
The State of Maharashtra, thr. Its Secretary, Revenue Deptt.and others
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.S.Deshpande, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. K.L.Dharmadhikari, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 30.01.2019.
In this writ petition, while issuing notice of final disposal on 29/08/2018, this Court had granted stay of the impugned order on the basis that petitioner No.1 is not owner of the vehicle. The vehicle, which is a truck, was seized by the respondent-Authorities on 14/06/2018, on the ground that sand was being illegally transported in the said vehicle. By order dated 19/06/2018, penalty of Rs.2,77,400/- was imposed.
2. After the interim order dated 29/08/2018 is passed by this Court, on 22/10/2018 the following order was passed.
"The impugned order has been passed under Section 48(8) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (in short, "MLR Code"). In connected writ KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2019 01:38:40 ::: wp5508.18.odt 2/3 petition, a preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the State regarding maintainability of a petition challenging the order passed either under Section 48(7) or Section 48(8) of the MLR Code before the appropriate Bench presides over by a single Judge. According to the State, the petition challenging both kinds of order are maintainable only before the Division Bench.
This issue has already been referred to a larger Bench by this Court for its proper resolution. Therefore, it would be appropriate that this petition is taken up for final hearing after the issue is answered by the larger Bench.
Put up, with Writ Petition No.7056/2018, after the decision of the larger Bench in the reference already made.
One of the writ petitions referred to the larger Bench is Writ Petition No.7056/2018."
3. As per the said order, this writ petition is awaiting disposal of the issue referred to the Larger Bench. But in the meanwhile, it is submitted that till the disposal of the present writ petition, which is awaiting decision of the Larger Bench, the vehicle KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2019 01:38:40 ::: wp5508.18.odt 3/3 would remain idle leading to damage. On this ground it is prayed before this Court that direction be given to the respondents to release the vehicle.
4. Mr. K. L. Dharmadhikari, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that even if direction is given to release the vehicle, it ought to be conditional.
5. In the light of the above, respondent No.3- Tahsildar, Risod, District Washim is directed to release the vehicle in question to petitioner No.2, subject to an undertaking to be filed by petitioners that in the event the writ petition is dismissed and the impugned order is confirmed, the aforesaid amount of penalty shall be deposited within a period of two weeks of the passing of order by this Court, failing which the vehicle shall be again seized by respondent No.3.
JUDGE KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2019 01:38:40 :::