Allowed

Chandrakant Uttam Sapkale v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Mar 2014WP/363/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought refund of proportionate auction royalty deposited before excavating sand. Due to a prohibitory order, excavation duration was curtailed. Court held petitioner entitled to refund based on excavated quantity versus permissions granted, directing refund within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Refund of the proportionate royalty amount deposited by the petitioner for sand not excavated due to prohibitory order.

Chandrakant Uttam Sapkale Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp363.13

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 363 OF 2013

¶5

Chandrakant s/o Uttam Sapkale age 35 years, occ. business, r/o Phup Nagar, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. .. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

¶8

The Collector, Collector Office, Jalgaon.

¶9

The Tahsildar Tahsil Office, Chopada Tq. Chopada, Dist. Jalgaon .. RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. B. S. Deshmukh, advocate for petitioner. Mr. M. M. Nerlikar, AGP for the State. =====

¶11

CORAM : R. M. BORDE &

¶12

A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 24th MARCH, 2014.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )

¶14

Heard.

¶15

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

¶16

wp363.13

¶17

¶18

parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

¶19

Petitioner is praying for refund of proportionate amount deposited by

¶20

him towards auction charge for permitting him to excavate sand out of the sand block from the river at village Nim-Gavhan, Dist. Jalgaon. It is not disputed that petitioner was the successful bidder and has deposited sum of Rs. 31,23,000/- towards royalty amount for excavation of sand out of the concerned sand block. Petitioner was put in possession of the sand block for the purpose of excavation on 21.11.2011. Due to prohibitory order passed by the Collector on 23.12.2011, petitioner could not excavate sand for a period between aforesaid date till he was permitted by the appellate forum to continue with the excavation activity on 16.05.2012. Last date prescribed for excavation of sand was 31.07.2012. Petitioner as such could excavate sand for approximately 2½ months. It is not disputed that petitioner was prohibited from excavating sand for a period of about five months because of prohibitory order issued by the Collector. It is also not disputed that petitioner was permitted to excavate sand to the extent of 4489 brass out of which he has excavated 1743 brass sand.

¶21

In view of the facts stated above, petitioner would be entitled to claim

¶22

refund of the proportionate amount. The amount of refund shall be in

¶23

wp363.13

¶24

¶25

proportion to the quantity of sand which petitioner was allowed to excavate under agreement and the actual quantity of sand excavated by him. Respondents shall accordingly calculate the amount and permit refund. Respondents shall refund the amount adhering to the formula referred to above, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from today. Petition accordingly stands disposed of. Rule made absolute in above terms. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands

¶27

disposed of.

¶28

( A. M. BADAR ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶29

dyb

Chandrakant Uttam Sapkale v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Uttam Sapkale v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukhtar Ahmed Momin Karimuddin Vs Govt. of India and Another

Dayanand Saluram Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pravin Baburao Hire and Ors. Vs the Cunsumer Disputes Redressal Forum and Ors.

Dr. Rekha Bhagwat Shinde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pramila Vishwanath Bankar Vs the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another

Sakshi Suppliers Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others