Bombay High Court
Aigp Developers (Pune) Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra , Revenue And ... on 31 August, 2023
Author: N.K. Gokhale
Bench: K.R. Shriram, N.K. Gokhale
1/2 5-WP-10449-2023.doc
Digitally
signed by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PURTI
PURTI PRASAD
PRASAD PARAB
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PARAB Date:
2023.09.01
18:07:48
+0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 10449 OF 2023
AIGP Developers (Pune) Private Limited ....Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
----
Mr. Saket Mone a/w Mr. Devansh Shah i/b Vidhi Partners for Petitioner.
Mr. K.S. Thorat, AGP for Respondents-State.
----
CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
DR. N.K. GOKHALE, JJ.
DATED : 31st AUGUST 2023 P.C. :
1. Petitioner's case is primarily challenging the impugned order dated 29th June 2023 passed by Respondent No.2. By the impugned order Respondent No.2 has directed recovery of a sum of Rs.13,45,86,252/- on the basis that petitioner has illegally excavated about 40858 brass of secondary minerals in addition to 40000 brass of secondary minerals for which petitioner had permission.
2. We have considered the panchanama with the assistance of the counsel. The panchanama does not indicate how this figure of 40858 was arrived at. The panchanama also does not discuss anything regarding the quantity excavated and how excavated minerals has been used at the site.
3. It is petitioner's case that petitioner had filed two written submissions one dated 29th November 2022 and other dated 9th March 2023.
Purti Parab ::: Uploaded on - 01/09/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2023 02:40:08 ::: 2/2 5-WP-10449-2023.doc Though there is reference in the impugned order that such submissions were filed, there is no discussion as to why those submissions have not been accepted. It is petitioner's case that petitioner also filed certificate of structural consultants for petitioner's project one M/s. Stresstech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. The said certificate also has not been considered or discussed. We also find in the impugned order Respondent No.2 has not discussed the judgments which were referred to in the reply in petitioner's submissions or as to how these judgments can be distinguished or not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Mr. Thorat states that petition was served only on 24 th August 2023 and requested for two weeks time to file reply. Reply to be filed and copy served by 15th September 2023. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed and copy served by 30th September 2023.
5. Stand over to 5th October 2023.
6. Until 12th October 2023 no coercive steps to be taken on the impugned order.
(DR. N.K. GOKHALE, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)
Purti Parab
::: Uploaded on - 01/09/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2023 02:40:08 :::