THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSversusMAHESHPRASAD DWARKADAS JAISWAL AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:45822-DB




                                               (1)                     ra41.24


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    27 REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 41 OF 2024
                                 IN WP/13545/2017

                        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                       VERSUS
                    MAHESHPRASAD DWARKADAS JAISWAL AND ANOTHER

           Mr. P.S. Patil, AGP for the applicant-State.
           Mr. A.H. Kasliwal and Mr. H.V. Patil, Advocates for the respondents.

                                          CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                                  JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
                                          DATE  : 29.09.2026

           PC :-

           01.          Heard learned Advocates for the parties. This application is

           filed seeking review of order passed by this Court dated 21.11.2017

           allowing the Writ Petition.



           02.          Learned AGP points out that para 9 of the order wherein it is

           observed by this Court that the learned Additional Government Pleader

           could not point out any provision to the Court showing that the claim of

           the respondents/present applicants was legal.       The Court, therefore,

           directed to refund the interest amount to the petitioners. Learned AGP

           now points out section 114 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, which

           reads as under :-
                                        (2)                        ra41.24


             “114. Recovery of duties, etc.


                    (1)    All duties, taxes, fines (except fines imposed by a Court)
             and fees leviable under any of the provisions of this Act or in respect
             of any licence, permit, pass or authorisation granted under it and the
             cost of the supervising staff appointed under section 58A if not paid
             within the due date or the prescribed period, shall be recovered from
             any person liable to pay the same or from his surety, if any, with
             simple interest at the rate of 2 per cent. Per month, from the date it
             has become due, as if they were arrears of land revenue.
             (2) When any person, in compliance with any rule, regulation or order
             made under this Act, gives a bond (other than a bond under section
             91 or 93) for the performance of an act, or for his abstention, from
             any act, such performance or abstention shall be deemed to be a
             public duty within the meaning of section 74 of the Indian Contract
             Act, 1872 (XI of 1872); and upon breach of the conditions of such
             bond by him, the whole sum named therein as the amount to be paid
             in case of such breach may be recovered from him or from his surety
             (if any) as if it were an arrear of land revenue.”


03.          Learned AGP fairly concedes that it ought to have been

pointed out to the Court at the time of hearing of the petition. However,

the learned AGP was not fully prepared and inadvertently the mistake

has occurred.     He submits that now the loss is caused to the public

exchequer.    The amount of interest is directed to be refunded.               Said

amount is Rs. 11,68,375/-.



04.          This Court finds that since important provision was not

shown, this Court had disposed off the matter. Considering provision of

section 114 of the Act, this Court certainly finds that it ought to have

been considered while passing the impugned order.
                                          (3)                    ra41.24




05.                 Learned Advocate Mr. Kasliwal and learned Advocate Mr. Patil

vehemently opposed the review application. They submit that there is no

error apparent on the face of record committed by the Court. It is only

in the matters where there is error on the face of record, the review is

permissible. No case is made out invoking provision of section 114 of the

Civil Procedure Code.



06.                 However, this Court finds that when there would be loss of

public exchequer and it is only because of inadvertence on the part of

learned AGP the provision was not pointed out, it would be proper to

recall the order and place the petition for hearing.



07.                 Considering the above, this Review Application is allowed.

The order dated 21.11.2017 is hereby recalled. Place the Writ Petition

for admission on Board dated 13.10.2026 in urgent admissions category.

Till next date the amount deposited in this Court shall be kept as it is.




          [JITENDRA JAIN, J.]                     [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

snk/2026/Sep26/ra41.24