Bombay High Court
PRASHANT BHASKAR WAGHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- RULE DISCHARGED
Holding
The petition was dismissed at the admission stage and no interim relief was granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Prashant Bhaskar Wagh, sought to quash several notices and orders issued by various state officials and to restrain them from taking possession of his properties, claiming the notices were illegal and beyond jurisdiction. He specifically requested an interim stay of a notice dated 16/06/2026, arguing that the property in question was not covered by the attachment order dated 25/02/1991 in Special Case No.5 of 1991. The respondents contended that the petitioner had suppressed documents and that the property was indeed listed in the schedule of attached properties approved by the Home Department on 18/02/1991. The court examined the records, noting that the attachment order of 25/02/1991 (under Exhibit‑3 of Miscellaneous Application No.13 of 1991) did include the disputed property and that subsequent judgments had confirmed the forfeiture of those assets. Consequently, the court found no basis to grant interim relief or any of the other prayers and dismissed the petition at the admission stage.
Issues considered
- Whether the notices and orders dated 30/08/2024, 07/03/2025, and 16/06/2026 are illegal, arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to an interim stay of execution of the notice dated 16/06/2026.
- Whether the disputed property was covered by the attachment order dated 25/02/1991 in Special Case No.5 of 1991.
- Whether earlier communications and notices are barred by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Special Case No.5 of 1991.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the other reliefs sought, including writs of certiorari and mandamus.
Subjects
- attachment of property
- forfeiture
- writ of certiorari
- writ of mandamus
- interim relief
- jurisdiction
- criminal procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41726-DB
Cri.WP 1315-26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1315 OF 2026
Prashant Bhaskar Wagh,
Age : 50 Years, Occu.: Business,
R/o.: Prbham, Wadibhokar Rd.,
Dhule, Tq. & Dist. : Dhule …. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralay, Mumbai - 400032
2. The Collctor, Dhule,
Office of the District Collector,
Dhule
3. Superintendent of Police, Dhule,
Office of the Superintendent of Police
Dhule
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhule,
Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Dhule
5. Additional Tahsildar, Dhule City,
Office of the Additional Tahsildar,
Dhule City, Dhule, Dist. Dhule
6. The Circle Officer, Division Devpur,
Office of the Devpur Division, Dhule,
Dist., : Dhule …. RESPONDENTS
…..
Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior counsel, i/b Mr. S. R. Sapkal a/w Mr. Yash A.
Jadhav, for the petitioner
Mr. R. D. Raut, APP for the Respondents-State
….
VS Maind/ Page|1
Cri.WP 1315-26
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
Reserved on : 07/09/2026
Pronounced on : 08/09/2026
ORDER :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the
admission stage, with the consent of learned Senior Counsel Mr. V. D.
Sapkal for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. R. D. Raut for the
respondent-State.
2. By way of this Criminal Writ Petition, the petitioner, who is the
son of Bhaskar Shankar Wagh and Mangalbai Wagh, has sought the
following reliefs:
“B. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, thereby quashing and setting
aside the communication / notice dated 30/08/2024
issued by respondent No.2, the notice dated
07/03/2025 issued by respondent No.6, Dhule and
the communication / notice dated 16/06/2026 issued
by respondent No.6 being illegal, arbitrary and
without jurisdiction;
C. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, restraining the respondents
from taking possession of any of the petitioner’s
VS Maind/ Page|2
Cri.WP 1315-26
movable or immovable properties, except valid judicial
order;
D. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, thereby quashing and setting
aside the order dated 25/05/2026 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer in Appeal No.RTS/115/2025;
E. Declare that the respondents have no authority in law
to take possession of any property other than Plot
No.2, admeasuring 5,000 sq. ft., situated in Survey
No.49/1, Devpur, unless specifically authorised by a
competent court;
F. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ order or direction, thereby quashing and setting
aside the government resolution dated 15/12/2023
issued by the respondent No.1;
G. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present
petition, stay the operation, implementation and
execution of the communication / notice dated
30/08/2024, the notice dated 07/03/2025, the order
dated 25/05/2026 and the communication / notice
dated 16/06/2026 and
H. Interim and ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause
“E” may kindly be granted in favour fo the petitioner.”
However, today, by way of ad interim relief, the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner has sought stay to the execution of
communication dated 16/06/2026, whereby the property mentioned
VS Maind/ Page|3
Cri.WP 1315-26
therein, owned by late mother of the petitioner, is to be taken in
possession of the State Government through respondent No.6 under
the orders of respondent No.2, Collector, Dhule.
3. Learned Senior Counsel has sought such urgent relief mainly on
the ground that the concerned Special Judge, in Special Case No. 5 of
1991, had ordered attachment of only two properties, namely, one
revolver and another being Plot No. 2, admeasuring 5,000 square feet,
out of Survey No. 49/1, situated at Devpur, Dhule. He pointed out that
even in Miscellaneous Application No.13 of 1991, the concerned Special
Judge, by passing an order below Exhibit-1, had ordered attachment of
only the aforesaid two properties and that the property which is sought
to be taken into possession under the impugned notice dated
16/06/2026 is not included in the said order.
4. As against this, the learned APP strongly opposed the
submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
seeking interim relief. He pointed out that the petitioner has not
annexed the entire record and has suppressed material documents. He
pointed out that the Home Department, Mantralaya, Maharashtra, had
already passed an order dated 18/02/1991, mentioning the schedule of
the properties of the accused in the aforesaid Special Case which were
VS Maind/ Page|4
Cri.WP 1315-26
to be attached. He pointed out that in the said schedule, as per
Statement-C, the disputed property in the present matter had already
been attached; however, its possession has not been taken till date, as
it was a residential house. He further pointed out that the concerned
Sessions Judge, in the aforesaid case, has specifically referred to the
date of the order, i.e. 25/02/1991, passed below Exhibit-1 in
Miscellaneous Application No.13 of 1991. Thus, according to him, the
schedule appended to the aforesaid miscellaneous application clearly
indicated the property which is sought to be taken into possession in
the present matter and therefore, no interim relief can be granted at
this juncture.
5. Heard the rival submissions. Also perused the documents on
record. It is extremely important to note that in the judgment dated
10/03/2006 passed in Special Case No. 5 of 1991, the concerned
Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, has specifically mentioned in the
operative part that the offence was proved against the accused persons
therein and therefore, the properties attached by the order dated
25/02/1991 passed by the District Court below Exhibit-1 in
Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 1991, along with other landed
property, i.e. Plot No. 2, admeasuring 5,000 square feet, out of Survey
No. 41/1, situated at Devpur, Dhule, be forfeited.
VS Maind/ Page|5
Cri.WP 1315-26
6. It appears that the learned Senior Counsel is contending that the
order passed below Exhibit-1 in Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of
1991 does not make any reference to the attachment of the property of
which possession is sought under the impugned notice. However, the
specific date of the order, i.e. 25/02/1991, is mentioned in the order
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule.
7. Admittedly, on going through the record in the aforesaid
Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 1991, no order was passed below
Exhibit-1 on 25/02/1991. However, the record further shows that, in
fact, the said order was passed on an interim application, Exhibit-3,
filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking attachment and under the
said order, all the properties mentioned in the schedule annexed
thereto were attached by way of an interim measure. Moreover, Exhibit-
1, i.e. Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 1991, was in fact disposed of
by the concerned Judge on 10/03/2006 in view of the final judgment
and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in
Special Case No. 5 of 1991, wherein reference has been made to the
order dated 25/02/1991.
8. Today, the learned APP placed on record the order dated
18/02/1991 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department,
VS Maind/ Page|6
Cri.WP 1315-26
Government of Maharashtra, mentioning all the properties in the
schedule. It is extremely important to note that the petitioner ought to
have placed on record the said schedule which was appended to
Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 1991. Though the said schedule
has not been filed by the petitioner, but the learned Senior Counsel
fairly accepted that the schedule appended to the order dated
18/02/1991 is the same schedule, wherein “Prabham” bungalow,
which is under dispute in the present matter, is mentioned as standing
in the name of the mother of the petitioner, Mangalabai Wagh. The
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any other
order dated 25/02/1991 passed below Exhibit-1 in Miscellaneous
Application No. 13 of 1991. Thus, it can be inferred that the only order
dated 25/02/1991 was the order passed below Exhibit-3 in
Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 1991.
9. Though the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in the
operative part of the order passed in Special Case No. 5 of 1991,
referred to the order below Exhibit-1 in Miscellaneous Application No.
13 of 1991, but he has specifically mentioned the date of the said order
as 25/02/1991. Thus, there being only one such order dated
25/02/1991 regarding attachment of the properties of the accused as
per the schedule, it has to be inferred that the learned Additional
VS Maind/ Page|7
Cri.WP 1315-26
Sessions Judge had, in fact, intended to refer to the order of attachment
of the properties mentioned in the schedule appended to Miscellaneous
Application No. 13 of 1991.
10. Even on going through the discussion in the judgment of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, it is clearly evident that the
landed property mentioned in the order dated 28/03/1995 was an
additional property under attachment, apart from the properties
already attached as per the schedule referred to above. Thus, it appears
that the petitioner is seeking to persuade the Court merely by referring
to the exhibit number of Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 1991. As
such, considering all these aspects, we are not inclined to grant any
interim relief in favour of the petitioner at this juncture.
11. It is to be noted that the petitioner has also sought other reliefs,
as mentioned in the petition, by challenging certain earlier
communications and notices. However, after the judgment passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Special Case No. 5 of
1991, the earlier communications and notices are already dealt with
and thereafter, the properties came to be attached as per the schedule
annexed to Miscellaneous Application No.13 of 1991, with specific
reference to the order dated 25/02/1991 passed below Exhibit-3 in the
VS Maind/ Page|8
Cri.WP 1315-26
said application. Therefore, considering all these aspects, even the
other prayers cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner.
12. Accordingly, the main petition itself is dismissed at the admission
stage. The petition stands disposed of.
13. Rule is discharged.
[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE]
JUDGE JUDGE
VS Maind/ Page|9
Checking your session…