Allowed

Vasudev Jagannath Agrawal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jan 2022WP/5922/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge Benches of the High Court at Aurangabad disposed of a writ petition by following a previous decision of the Division Bench in WP No. 5964 of 2008, allowing the petition on the same terms regarding illegal service charges.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed on the same terms as the judgment in WP No. 5964 of 2008; Rule made absolute.

Vasudev Jagannath Agrawal Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

220 -WP- 5922-08.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

220 WRIT PETITION NO. 5922 OF 2008

¶5

Vasudeo Jagannath Agrawal, Age; 71 Years, Occu- Business, R/o-8 Ganesh Building, 122, Navi Peth, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶6

… PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Industries Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -400 032

¶9

The Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai.

¶10

The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Dhule.

¶11

The Deputy Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Jalgaon.

¶12

… RESPONDENTS

¶13

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. A G Talhar Addl. GP for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. P.S. Patil Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 : Mr. S.S. Dande

¶14

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND S. G. DIGE, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 3^rd JANUARY, 2022

220 -WP- 5922-08.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT :

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that another writ petition bearing No. 5964 of 2008 involving similar issue has disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court under Judgment and order dated 06-10-2017. In the said judgment, this Court held that though consent to pay service charges at enhanced rate of Rs. 4.50 per square meter per annum from May, 2008 onwards, M.I.D.C. has no legal right to claim service charges at such enhanced rate. Paragraph No. 35 of the said judgment reads thus:

¶20

“35. Though some of the Associates of Industries had given alleged consent to pay service charges at enhanced rate of Rs.4.50 per square metre per annum from May 2008 onwards, M.I.D.C. has no legal right to claim service charges at such enhanced rate for the period prior to 19-01-2016 i.e. the date of notification, amending Rule 19 of M.I.D. Rules. Parties would be governed by the notification dated 18-01-2001 till the Rule 29 of M.I.D. Rules was amended by notification dated 19-01-2016 prescribing the service charges @ Rs.4.50 per square meter. In the circumstances, the demand of M.I.D.C. from industries Associations and open plot holders in M.I.D.C. area, Jalgaon of the service charges @ Rs. 10/- or @ Rs.4.50 per square meter per annum. w.e.f. 01-05-2008 under letter dated 10-06-2008 is absolutely illegal.”

¶21

It is not disputed by the learned Advocates for the parties that the petitioner is similarly situated and claimed similar relief.

¶22

¶23

220 -WP- 5922-08.odt

¶24

In view of that, for the reasons recorded in the Judgment and

¶25

order dated 06-10-2017 in writ petition No. 5964 of 2008, the present petition is also allowed on the same terms.

¶26

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

¶27

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶28

( S.G. DIGE ) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶29

mtk

Vasudev Jagannath Agrawal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasudev Jagannath Agrawal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharatbhushan Sonajirao Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhavrao Rupchand Deoraj Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Salim Shaikh Abbas and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Raosaheb Mango Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kundansing Badusing Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Satish Rajdhar Patil Vs the Union of India and Another