Partly allowed

Pankaj Murlidhar Mene v. the Collector, Amravati and Another

Bombay HC26 Feb 2024WP/100/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Collector forfeited 337.40 quintals of rice and ordered distribution under the public distribution system without hearing the owner. The High Court found the petitioner was denied a hearing before an adverse order with civil consequences, quashed the forfeiture order, and remanded the matter to the Collector to decide afresh after hearing all concerned parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.12.2023 of Collector, Amravati quashed; matter remanded for fresh decision after hearing petitioner and parties, expeditiously.

Pankaj Murlidhar Mene Vs the Collector, Amravati and Another — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

86wp100-24.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.100 OF 2024

¶5

PANKAJ MURLIDHAR MENE VS THE COLLECTOR, AMRAVATI AND ANOTHER

¶6

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶7

Shri Abdul Subhan, Advocate for the Petitioner/s Shri Dhumale, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/State

¶8

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J. DATE : 26.02.2024

¶9

Heard.

¶10

The order impugned was passed by the Collector, Amravati, forfeiting 337.40 quintals of rice owned by the petitioner and directed to distribute it under the general distribution system.

¶11

The only ground raised in the present writ petition is that the petitioner was not heard before passing the impugned order.

¶12

It is submitted that the driver submitted all the relevant documents showing that no illegality was committed and despite the same the impugned order was passed.

¶13

The learned AGP is not disputing the fact that the petitioner was not heard. However, he is disputing that the documents were submitted by the driver when the truck was intercepted. It is pointed out that when the truck owner and the driver submitted their reply, along with the same, the documents were submitted.

¶14

nd.thawre

¶15

2 86wp100-24.odt

¶16

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner was not heard before passing the order impugned, which is admittedly an adverse order having civil consequences. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶17

(i) The Writ Petition is partly allowed.

¶18

(ii) The impugned order dated 15.12.2023, passed by the Collector, Amravati, is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Collector, Amravati to decide the same afresh after hearing the petitioner and the concerned parties.

¶19

(iii) The Collector, Amravati shall decide the matter expeditiously.

¶20

[ANIL S. KILOR, J.]

¶21

nd.thawre

Pankaj Murlidhar Mene v. the Collector, Amravati and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Murlidhar Mene v. the Collector, Amravati and Another

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

Ku. Bharti D/O Rajkumar Kukreja and Others Vs M/S Bhagwandas Vyapar Udyog Ltd. and Another

M/S Gajanan Motors, Thr. Prop. Shri Amit Vitthalrao Banabakode Vs M/S Shree Shreyas Motors Thr. Its Partner, Shri Suresh Bhandarkar, Amravati

Smt. Dalerbai Mancharshah Awari High School through Its Head Mistress, Dipali Dinesh Bhande Vs Jayshri Rameshchandra Bhore and Others

Sau. Laxmi W/O Govinda Zade Vs the Collector, Akola and Others

Ashok Gulab Kudale vs State of Maharashtra

Jeet Inon Karu Gupta vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.