Allowed

Shailendra S/O Rajkumar Nagvanshi v. State of Maharashtra, Department of Revenue and Forest, Thr. Secretary, Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Oct 2024WP/5953/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside a communication refusing to extend a zero royalty permit for sand transport. Finding the order unreasonable in light of precedent on inter-State trade restrictions, the writ petition was made absolute and the petitioner was instructed to file a fresh application with the Additional Collector.

What did the court decide?

Communication dated 04-9-2024 refusing extension of zero royalty permit set aside; petitioner directed to apply to Additional Collector within 48 hours.

Shailendra S/O Rajkumar Nagvanshi Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 wp5953.24

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5953 OF 2024

¶4

( Shailendra s/o Rajkumar Nagvanshi ..vs.. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Mumbai 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

- - - - Mr. K.A. Kothari, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.V. Chauhan, G.P. with Mr. S.S. Hulke, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶7

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &

¶8

ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATED : 07-10-2024

¶9

In the wake of the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.2078/2021 along with other petitions decided on 07-4-2022, where a challenge was raised by the inter-State Transporters requiring payment of 10% of the royalty amount to the District Mineral Foundation on entering the State borders which infact amounted to imposition of restriction on inter-State trade, the Division Bench of this Court has set aside it. A copy of the said judgment is placed on record and we have perused the same.

¶10

At present the petitioner, who is engaged in the business of supply of sand, is aggrieved by the communication dated 04-9-2024 issued by the Additional Collector, Gondia, refusing him extension of the ‘zero royalty permit’ which was granted for transport of 2000 brass from 31-7-2024 to 18-8-2024. However, since he was unable to accomplish the said task within the time stipulated and 420 brass of sand

¶11

2 wp5953.24

¶12

could not be transported, a request was made for extension of the period of the ‘zero royalty’ but on the administrative reasons same was rejected.

¶13

We have heard the learned Government Pleader Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Senior Counsel and since he is conscious of the legal position as set out in the judgment to which we have referred above, he does not raise a contest to the grounds raised in the petition, as he find the communication to be unreasonable.

¶14

He has given a suggestion to the petitioner to make an application to the Additional Collector, Gondia within a period of forty-eight hours, upon which the Additional Collector, Gondia shall pass appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the application.

¶15

The communication dated 04-9-2024 issued by the Additional Collector, Gondia is set aside by making the petition absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶16

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶17

adgokar

Shailendra S/O Rajkumar Nagvanshi v. State of Maharashtra, Department of Revenue and Forest, Thr. Secretary, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra S/O Rajkumar Nagvanshi v. State of Maharashtra, Department of Revenue and Forest, Thr. Secretary, Mumbai 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

Sudhir Jagobaji Gulghane Vs the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur and Others

Jitendra S/O Hiraman Madankar and Others Vs the Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Bhandara and Others

Dr. Sanjay Shankarrao Deotale Vs Nagpur Municipal Corporation,through the Commissioner, Nagpur and Others

Shivkumar Dayashankar Dixit Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, State Excise, Mumbai and Others

Sindhu Education Society, Nagpur Thr. Its Secy., Shri. Deepak Bajaj and Another vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secy., Dept. of Education, Mumbai and Ors.

Samudri D/O. Kisandas Purkalwar Vs the State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Social Welfare and Special Assistance Dept., Mumbai and Ors.