Dismissed

Sarafraj Alam Sikandar Alam v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Oct 2012WP/595/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad rejected a writ petition challenging the stoppage of stamp supply by the Collector of Stamps. The Court held the action was justified due to prima facie evidence of misconduct and the petitioner's attempts to pressure authorities via extra-judicial means, distinguishing a cited precedent.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected summarily; no direction given to resume supply of stamps.

Sarafraj Alam Sikandar Alam Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp595.12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.595 OF 2012

¶5

SARAFRAJ ALAM SIKANDAR ALAM.... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ANOTHER.... RESPONDENTS.

¶6

...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mrs. Kavita Bhale,
Adv. h/f Mr.Katneshwarkar P.R.
AGP for Respondent 1: Mr.K.B. Chaudhari.
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr.Usmanpurkar A.S.

¶7

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & S.S. SHINDE, JJ.
Dated: October 16, 2012.

¶8

PER COURT:

¶9

1.Petitioner is challenging action of stoppage
of supply of stamps by Collector of Stamps,
Parbhani in view of order passed on 2.7.2010. It
is not in dispute that petitioner has misused a
stamp while dealing with sale of stamps at
Wasmat. On consideration of certain complaints
lodged against petitioner, Collector of Stamps
was pleased to stop supply of stamps. One such
complaint is filed by one Vitthal Jagannathrao

¶10

wp595.12

¶11

¶12

Satpute who has alleged that stamp vendor has
fabricated record and issued antedated stamp. It
is alleged that old antedated stamp has been
supplied with a view to create fabricated
document. A criminal complaint pursuant to
report lodged by Vitthal Satpute is pending in
criminal Court. There is prima facie material to
substantiateallegationslevelledagainst
petitioner.

¶13

2.Respondent State has tendered affidavit-in-
reply and justified action of stoppage of stamps
at the hands of Collector of Stamps, Parbhani.
Affidavit-in-reply has also been presented by
respondent No.2 and it has been pointed out that
petitioner herein was arrested for commission of
offence of theft in Crime No.161/1994 by Basmat
Police. It is also alleged that there are two
complaints tendered by different persons alleging
irregularities in sale of stamps by petitioner.
Petitioner is also involved in a criminal case
lodged at the instance of respondent No.2. Dy.
Director of Stamps, Latur has also made report to

¶14

wp595.12

¶15

¶16

Chief Superintendent of Stamps, Maharashtra State
that there are several irregularities committed
by petitioner in the matter of sale of stamps.

¶17

3.In such circumstances, action of stoppage of
supply of stamps directed by Collector of Stamps
cannot be said to be excessive. Authorities have
taken action in pursuance to complaints lodged
against petitioner. Apart from above, we find
that petitioner has approached extra judicial
authorities, politicians with a view to bring
pressure on authorities dealing with matter.
There are letters issued by political persons to
Minister as well as officers in charge of
initiating action against petitioner, which are
placed on record at page Nos.71, 72 and 73.
Since petitioner has approached extra judicial
authority so as to exert pressure on authority -
Collector of Stamps, Parbhani, we are of opinion

¶18

that exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of Constitution is not warranted.
Petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of
this Court in case of Dilip J. Bhatia vs. The

¶19

wp595.12

¶20

¶21

Commissioner of Police, Thane & another [2001(1)
Bom.C.R. 448]. We have gone through judgment
cited. Facts giving rise to reported case are
totally different.

¶22

4.In view of reasons recorded above, we are of
view that petition does not deserve consideration
and same stands rejected, summarily.

¶23

Kadam/*

Sarafraj Alam Sikandar Alam v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarafraj Alam Sikandar Alam v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pranav Rajendra Chavan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ishwarlal Lalwani ( Jain ) HUF Vs Union of India through the Sec. Department of Revenue and Ors.

M/S Jeevanram Bijeram Agrawal ( HUF ) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gangadhar Bhimrao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Saraswati Shikshan Prasarakk Mandal Shiradhon Dist Nanded through Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.