Bombay High Court
Javed S/O Jabbar Sheikh vs State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 1 February, 2016
Author: Vasanti A. Naik
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik, A.S. Chandurkar
wp6809.15.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6809/2015
PETITIONER: Javed s/o Jabbar Sheikh
Aged about 36 yrs., Occ. Business,
R/o Budhwari Peth, Tehsil - Umred,
District - Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through the
Collector, Bhandara.
2. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Office,
Paoni, District - Bhandara.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhandara.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri T.H. Bewali, Advocate for petitioner
Shri N.S. Rao, AGP for respondents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, AND
A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATE : 01.02.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent no.2 - Tahsildar and the respondent no.3 - Sub Divisional Officer to release the vehicle-truck bearing registration No.MH 40 Y 9333, seized on 24.9.2015. The petitioner has also impugned the order of the ::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:21:13 ::: wp6809.15.odt 2 Sub Divisional Officer, dated 1.10.2015.
The truck of the petitioner was loaded with sand and the said sand was being carried on 23.9.2015 from Gudegaon Sand Ghat as per royalty invoice No.1509176371. While the truck was travelling through the jurisdiction of Tahsil Paoni, the Tahsildar stopped the vehicle of the petitioner and demanded the transit passes - royalty passes. The driver of the petitioner's truck submitted the transit passes, but the respondent no.2 prepared a seizure panchanama and seized the vehicle -
truck of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the petitioner approached the office of the Tahsildar on 25.9.2015, 28.9.2015, 29.9.2015 and 1.10.2015 seeking the release of the truck but the truck was not released. According to the petitioner, by an order dated 1.10.2015, the Sub Divisional Officer imposed a penalty for illegally transporting the sand and observed in the order that the truck would not be released unless the penalty was paid. The said order as also the action on the part of the Tahsildar in seizing the truck have been impugned by the petitioner in the instant petition.
Shri Bewali, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the truck of the petitioner was carrying the sand as per the transit passes - royalty passes issued in favour of the petitioner by invoice No.1509176371 for the period from 23.9.2015 to 25.9.2015. It is ::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:21:13 ::: wp6809.15.odt 3 submitted that though the royalty passes were possessed by the driver of the truck and the same were produced before the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar went on to seize the truck of the petitioner on 24.9.2015. It is stated that the petitioner approached the respondent no.2 - Tahsildar on at least four dates before passing of the impugned order, dated 1.10.2015 by the Sub Divisional Officer for release of the truck but the truck was not released. It is stated that the seizure of the vehicle was bad in law, inasmuch as the sand was being transported in the truck of the petitioner as per the valid transit - royalty passes. It is stated that the Sub Divisional Officer did not grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as the notice appears to have been addressed to Shri Wahidbhai, J.B. Traders, Nagpur, whereas the name of the petitioner is Javed s/o Jabbar Sheikh. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, the prayers made by the petitioner may be granted.
Shri Rao, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted by referring to the affidavit-in- reply filed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3 that the petitioner had failed to comply with the directions and had not submitted the personal bond. It submitted that as per the request made by the petitioner on 6.10.2015, it was not possible to release the seized truck of the petitioner as the seized vehicle was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Officer for ::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:21:13 ::: wp6809.15.odt 4 necessary action. It is submitted that the driver of the petitioner's truck did not possess the transit passes at the time of preparation of the seizure panchanama. It is stated that the petitioner also did not possess the computer generated royalty receipt. It is stated that the computer generated royalty receipt is annexed to the petition for the first time.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the provisions of Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, it appears that the respondent - Tahsildar was not justified in not releasing the truck of the petitioner after the petitioner approached the Tahsildar on 25.9.2015 and thereafter, along with royalty passes. Even assuming that the truck of the petitioner was seized as the driver of the truck did not produce the royalty passes or the computer generated receipt at the time of seizure of the truck, the Tahsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer could have verified the royalty passes - transit passes, as they were generated from the office of the Collector - Mining Department. On a perusal of the transit passes - royalty passes, it appears that they were valid for the period from 23.9.2015 to 25.9.2015. If the royalty passes were valid from 23.9.2015 to 25.9.2015, the truck of the petitioner should have been released immediately even assuming that the driver of the truck had not produced the computer generated receipt or the transit passes - royalty passes, at the time of seizure of the vehicle.
::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:21:13 :::wp6809.15.odt 5 Though we are not inclined to decide the issue whether the driver of the petitioner's truck produced the royalty passes before the Tahsildar or not, it is stated in from paragraph no.4 of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3 that during the inspection it was found that the royalty passes were issued in respect of the vehicle of the petitioner on 23.9.2015 and the same were to expire on 24.9.2015. The statement in paragraph no.4 of the affidavit-in-reply appears to be factually incorrect as it is clear from the perusal of the copy of the royalty passes that the royalty passes were valid for the period from 23.9.2015 to 25.9.2015.
Since the truck was seized on 24.9.2015, that is during the validity of the transit passes, the Tahsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer ought to have released the vehicle of the petitioner, even assuming that it was legally detained.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. We direct the respondent nos.2 and 3 to release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing truck registration No. MH 40 Y 9333, within a period of three days.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
Steno copy of this judgment is granted.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
::: Uploaded on - 02/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 03:21:13 :::