Bombay High Court
Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Represented Thr. ... vs The Additional Commissioner, Amravati ... on 13 February, 2019
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande, Vinay Joshi
Order 1302wp1214.19
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1214/2019.
Dilip Buldicon Ltd.
-VERSUS-
The Additional Commissioner, Amravati and others.
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri R.R. Rathod, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE &
VINAY JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 13, 2019.
Heard.
2. Issue Notice for final disposal of the matter, returnable on 10.04.2019. Learned Addl.G.P., waives notice for respondent nos.1 to 4. Hamdast granted.
3. The royalty of Rs. 42,03,200/- for illegal excavation of 10,508 brass of soil/murum, is sought to be recovered along with 5 times penalty amount of Rs.2,10,16,000/- from the petitioner, who is a contractor for construction of Nagpur-Tuljapur ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2019 01:13:35 ::: Order 1302wp1214.19 2 Highway.
4. As per interim orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, 12.5% amount of Rs.26,27,000/- is deposited by way of cheque and for further 12.5% amount, Bank Guarantee is furnished. Hence, the cost of soil/murum excavated is secured. The question is - Whether imposition of 5 times penalty is justifiable or not ?
5. The matter is pending before the Additional Commissioner, challenging recovery of royalty penalty.
6. We direct the petitioner to furnish the schedule for completion of the construction work of Nagpur - Tuljapur Highway to this Court, on affidavit. We also direct respondents to file an affidavit stating as to why the petitioner was not granted opportunity of hearing in the matter of illegal excavation and imposition of penalty.
7. It is informed to us that the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner is sought to be encashed by sending letter to the Punjab National Bank at Bhopal. In view of this, we restrain respondents from encashing the Bank Guarantee ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2019 01:13:35 ::: Order 1302wp1214.19 3 furnished by the petitioner of 12.5% sum, as was directed to the Committee by the Sub Divisional Officer.
8. The petitioner to extend the validity of the Bank Guarantee pending decision on this Petition by this Court, at least 15 days in advance. If such renewal of Bank Guarantee is not furnished 15 days in advance, the interim order granted, shall stand vacated.
9. Copy of this order be furnished to learned Counsel for the parties to act upon.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/02/2019 01:13:35 :::