Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 25 (BOM)

Indrajit v. State of Maharashtra

2014-01-07

S.S.SHINDE, V.M.DESHPANDE

body2014
JUDGMENT : S.S. SHINDE, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to the grounds taken in the petition, annexure thereto and order dated 14.10.2013 passed by the District Collector, Latur. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Latur (for short, A.P.M.C.) has given certificate on 13.8.2013 that, the petitioner purchased wheat from Market Yard. Latur. He invited our attention to Exhibit-G at Page-84 i.e. certificate issued by the A.P.M.C. Latur dated 13.8.2013. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further invited our attention to pages from 23 to 46 of the compilation of writ petition i.e., bills and submitted that, wheat was purchased from various traders. He further invited our attention at pages 47 and 48 of the compilation of writ petition i.e., copies of bills issued by Om Trading Company and submits that, empty bags which were used to fill in wheat, were purchased from one Om Trading Company. Learned Counsel also invited our attention to the say filed before the District Collector, Latur. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner did purchase wheat bags from traders operating within the jurisdiction of A.P.M.C. Latur and to that effect, certificate is issued by A.P.M.C. Latur. It is submitted that, entire actions of the petitioner are lawful and transparent. It is further submitted that, the petitioner is ready to furnish solvent security in case wheat bags are released in favour of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner alternatively submits that, in case this Court is not inclined to accept submissions made herein before and to entertain this petition, in that case the petitioner may be given one more opportunity to approach the District Collector, Latur, so as to place on record the bills of purchasing empty wheat bags from Om Trading Company and also certificate issued by A.P.M.C. Latur and all other relevant documents. 2. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposed the prayers in the petition and submits that, all documents are considered by the District Collector, Latur. It is submitted that, the District Collector, Latur, after perusal of the say filed by the petitioner and also documents placed on record has passed appropriate order, therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned order. 3. It is submitted that, the District Collector, Latur, after perusal of the say filed by the petitioner and also documents placed on record has passed appropriate order, therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned order. 3. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State at length. With their able assistance we have perused the grounds taken in the petition, annexure thereto and the impugned order passed by the District Collector, Latur. On perusal of the order passed by the District Collector, Latur on 14.10.2013, it appears that, the petitioner did not satisfy the Collector how the empty bags having mark of different States on it, have come in possession of the petitioner. Upon perusal of copies of bills which are placed on record at pages 47 and 48 of the compilation of the writ petition, we find that said documents i.e. the copies of bills were not placed on record before the District Collector, Latur. Therefore, the District Collector, Latur had no occasion to look into those documents. It appears that, first time the petitioner has annexed copies of those bills with writ petition. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the argument of the petitioner on the basis of copies of bills issued by Om Trading Company at pages 47 and 48 of the compilation of the writ petition. Apart from the copies of above mentioned two bills, it further appears that, the petitioner has not specifically invited attention of the District Collector, Latur to the certificate issued by A.P.M.C. Latur dated 13.8.2013. 4. Therefore, in the light of discussion herein above, we deem it appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned order and relegate the parties before the District Collector, Latur so as to hear the application afresh by the District Collector, Latur and decide the same after hearing the parties in accordance with law. Hence, the following order. ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 14.10.2013 passed by the District Collector, Latur is quashed and set aside. Application filed by the petitioner is restored to its original file. (ii) The petitioner to approach before the District Collector, Latur on or before 20.1.2014. Hence, the following order. ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 14.10.2013 passed by the District Collector, Latur is quashed and set aside. Application filed by the petitioner is restored to its original file. (ii) The petitioner to approach before the District Collector, Latur on or before 20.1.2014. (iii) If the petitioner wish to place on record the copies of the bills issued by Om Trading Company and other documents, he can do so, however, same exercise to be done on or before 22.1.2014. (iv) The District Collector, Latur to hear the petitioner within two weeks from 22.1.2014 and decide the application of the petitioner afresh on or before 10.2.2014. (v) Interim relief granted by this Court on 19.11.2013 and continued time to time during pendency of this writ petition, to continue till 10.2.2014. (vi) Writ Petition is partly allowed. Same stands disposed of accordingly. (vii) We make it clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the application and it is left open to the District Collector, Latur to decide the said application afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties to put forth their contentions. (viii) Rule is made absolute on above terms. Petition Partly Allowed.