Bombay High Court
PRALHAD SUDAM PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR COLLECTOR NANDURBAR AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court did not set aside the penalty but allowed the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority and ordered release of the dumper upon deposit of 25% of the penalty amount.
Summary
The petitioner challenged a notice dated 31 July 2026 issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Nandurbar, which demanded a reply within 48 hours to avoid a penalty of Rs 2,03,630 and the seizure of his dumper (vehicle No. MH‑39‑AD‑9099). While the writ petition was pending, the Sub‑Divisional Officer imposed the penalty on 9 September 2026. The petitioner’s counsel limited the prayer to seeking liberty to approach the Appellate Authority and to be directed to release the seized dumper upon depositing 25% of the penalty. The Court, noting the limited prayer, disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to approach the Appellate Authority and directing that the dumper be released upon payment of the stipulated 25% and furnishing an undertaking or other conditions. No substantive interference with the penalty order was made.
Issues considered
- What is the scope of judicial review over a notice and penalty imposed by a Sub‑Divisional Officer under administrative law?
- Whether the petitioner can be directed to deposit a portion of the penalty to secure release of the seized vehicle pending appeal.
Subjects
- penalty
- seizure
- writ petition
- appellate authority
- vehicle seizure
- administrative law
- due process
Judgment
1 945wp13389.26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
945 WRIT PETITION NO. 13389 OF 2026
PRALHAD SUDAM PATIL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR COLLECTOR NANDURBAR AND
OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. More Abhijit S.
AGP for Respondents: Mr. K.S. Patil
…
CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : 30.09.2026
PER COURT :
1. The petitioner has raised the challenge to the notice dated
31.07.2026 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Nandurbar, calling upon
him to file reply to the said notice, within 48 hours, as to why the
penalty of Rs. 2,03,630/- should not be imposed and the Dumper
bearing No. MH-39-AD-9099, should not be seized and the aforesaid
penalty should not be imposed upon him. This notice has been
challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.
2. When the matter is called upon, the learned Advocate for the
petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present Writ Petition
the order of penalty has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on
09.09.2026. Therefore, now he would restrict his prayer only to the
extent that when he approaches to the Appellate Authority, the directions
may be issued to the Appellate Authority to release the Dumper seized by
them upon depositing 25% of the penalty amount imposed by the Sub
2 945wp13389.26.odt
Divisional Officer.
3. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned Advocate
for the petitioner, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty in
favour of the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority to raise
challenge to the impugned order dated 09.09.2026.
4. In case the petitioner approaches to the Appellate Court, the
petitioner shall deposit 25% of the amount of penalty as directed in the
impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. Upon such deposit
being made the aforesaid Dumper of the petitioner shall be released on
furnishing undertaking or by imposing other suitable conditions by the
Appellate Authority.
5. With these directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )
Mahajansb/
Checking your session…