Allowed

Digambar S/O Radhesham Pathode v. State of Maharashtra, Throguh Chief Secretary, Revenue an Forest Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC6 Jan 2021WP/2704/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged penalty and confiscation for illegal sand transport. Petitioner argued seizure document stated vehicle was empty. Court found impugned order unsustainable due to lack of spot panchanama and contradictory seizure document. Writ petition allowed, order quashed, and vehicles released.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to release the petitioner's tractor and trolley forthwith.

Digambar S/O Radhesham Pathode Vs State of Maharashtra… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 wp 2704-2020.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

Writ Petition No. 2704 of 2020

¶4

Digambar s/o Radhesham Pathode Vs. State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department and others

¶5

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders

¶6

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶7

Mr. J.K. Matale, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. T.H. Khan, AGP for the respondents No.1 to 5

¶8

CORAM :MANISH PITALE, J.

¶9

DATED : JANUARY 06, 2021

¶10

By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has
challenged order dated 09/03/2020, passed by the
respondent No.4 – Sub-Divisional Officer, whereby
penalty of Rs.1,15,400/- has been imposed on the
petitioner for having illegally transported one brass of
sand (minor mineral) by using his tractor. The tractor
and trolley were also confiscated.

¶11

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the impugned order was passed on the
basis of an exercise, which was wholly illegal and
without jurisdiction and that there was no material on
record to demonstrate that the impugned order could
have been passed under Section 48(8) of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

¶12

2 wp 2704-2020.odt

¶13

3.In order to support the contentions, the
learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of
this Court to the japtinama dated 16/02/2020, on the
basis of which the tractor and trolley were seized. A
perusal of the same would show that in column No.8,
pertaining to reasons for confiscation it is stated that
the said vehicle was empty. On this basis, it was
submitted that there is nothing to show that any sand
was found in the said vehicle in question or that it was
being illegally transported. It is submitted that the
statement of the petitioner recorded before respondent
No.4 – Sub-Divisional Officer also reiterated the fact
that the tractor was found to be empty and not
carrying any sand even as per japtinama. It is stated in
the aforesaid oral statement of the petitioner that he
was merely crossing the riverbed on his tractor along
with trolley and the respondent No.5 – Tahsildar and
other officials simply accosted him and executed the
japtinama.

¶14

4.A perusal of the impugned order shows that
there is no reference made to the aforesaid specific
stand taken on behalf of the petitioner.

¶15

5.In this backdrop, on 08/12/2020, this Court
passed the following order.

¶16

“Heard the learned counsel for rival parties.

¶17

2.The learned counsel for the

¶18

3 wp 2704-2020.odt

¶19

petitioner has relied on the japtinama dated
16/02/2020 issued by the concerned officer
and it is stated that this very document
falsifies the allegation levelled against the
petitioner. It is submitted that neither the
Tahsildar nor the Sub-Divisional Officer had
relied upon any material to come to the
conclusion that minor mineral (sand) was
being illegally excavated and transported by
the petitioner.

¶20

3.In the reply filed on behalf of
respondent No.5 also there is nothing stated
beyond what is found in the said japtinama.

¶21

4.In this situation, the learned
A.G.P. submitted that if short adjournment is
granted, it could be examined, if any spot
panchanama or contemporaneous document
was on record to make good the allegation
against the petitioner.

¶22

5.Hence, list this petition on
15/12/2020 for final disposal.”

¶23

6.It is an admitted position that the
respondents had failed to produce any spot
panchanama or contemporaneous document to make
good the allegations against the petitioner.

¶24

7.In view of the above, it becomes clear that
the japtinama dated 16/02/2020, a document
executed by the respondents themselves, falsifies the
allegations made against the petitioner. This indicates
that the action of the respondents in confiscating the
tractor and trolley was unsustainable. The impugned
order imposing the penalty on the petitioner is also,
therefore, found to be wholly unsustainable.

¶25

4 wp 2704-2020.odt

¶26

8.In view of the above, the Writ Petition is
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside
and the respondents are directed to release the tractor
and trolley belonging to the petitioner forthwith.

¶27

 JUDGE

¶28

MP Deshpande

Digambar S/O Radhesham Pathode v. State of Maharashtra, Throguh Chief Secretary, Revenue an Forest Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Digambar S/O Radhesham Pathode v. State of Maharashtra, Throguh Chief Secretary, Revenue an Forest Department, Mumbai and Others

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

Smt. Shakuntala W/O Sursh Bobde and 2 Others Vs Remesh Purushottam Gadhikar and Another

Leeladhar @ Nilesh S/O Vinayak Sawarkar Vs State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Ps Karanja (Ghadge) Wardha Distwardha and Another

Rohidas S/O Maruti Landge Vs State of Mah. Thr. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Buldhana through Executive Engineer Vs the Collector, Buldhana and Others

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Buldhana through Executive Engineer Vs the Collector, Buldhana and Others

Vikki S/O Rameshkumar Jat Vs State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Lakadganj Ps Lakadganj, Nagpur , Ps Lakadganj, Nagpur