SHAIKH ISARUDDIN SHAIKH MUKTARUDDINversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:39579-DB




                                               (1)                    wp2626.17


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           30 WRIT PETITION NO. 2626 OF 2017
                          SHAIKH ISARUDDIN SHAIKH MUKTARUDDIN
                                         VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

           Mr. S.A. Ambad, Advocate for the petitioner.
           Ms. S.S. Joshi, AGP for the respondent-State.
           Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.2.
           Mr. S.V. Adwant, Advocate for respondent No.3.

                                          CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                                  JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
                                          DATE  : 27.08.2026
           PC :-

           01.          The petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions

           to the respondent – Reserve Bank of India [for short “RBI”] to accept

           200 demonetised currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination from the

           petitioner, total amounting to Rs.1 lakh and to pay him the amount in

           fresh currency.   There is also prayer for grant of interest on the said

           amount.



           02.          The facts are that the petitioner happens to be a contractor.

           He was travelling in a vehicle bearing registration No. MH-44-G-1855 and

           was coming towards Kalamnuri.       He was carrying the above amount,

           which was to be paid to the labourers/workers. It was election time and

           therefore his vehicle was intercepted by the Special Surveillance Team.
                                   (2)                      wp2626.17


An amount of Rs.1,54,000/- was found in possession of the petitioner.

Out of the said amount, amount of Rs.1 lakh was in the nature of notes

of Rs.500/-. Said amount was seized from the petitioner on 18.11.2016.

After investigation etc. on 27.12.2016, the Election Commissioner issued

notification and directed all the District Collectors to return the amount

seized during the said period. It is thus on 30.12.2016, the currency was

again handed over to the petitioner.        However, by that time, the

Government had demonetized currency notes of Rs. 500/- and Rs.

1000/- w.e.f. 08.11.2016 and the notes were to be in circulation only till

31.12.2016. The petitioner, therefore, could not get the amount

immediately exchanged. The amount in old currency notes is thus lying

with the petitioner in view of the demonetization. The petitioner is not in

a position to get the amount back. When request was made to the RBI,

it was informed by communication dated 31.03.2017 that old currency

notes will not be accepted by the Government. The petitioner in view of

this, has approached this Court.



03.          Learned Advocate for the respondent – RBI opposes this

petition.   He submits that now the notes cannot be exchanged as the

notes have already been demonetized.          Learned AGP and learned

Advocates for other respondents also prayed for passing appropriate
                                    (3)                     wp2626.17


order.



04.        This Court in the order dated 06.07.2026 in Writ Petition No.

12553 of 2019 has held that when it is beyond the control of a person to

get the notes exchanged within a stipulated period. He cannot be

penalized for such situation.   This Court in that case had directed the

petitioner to tender notes with the RBI. The RBI was directed to verify

the notes and return cash in fresh currency to such person.



05.        This Court finds that in the present case also the petitioner

cannot be penalized for the events that took place.      It was under the

direction of the Election Commissioner, the notes were taken in the

possession of the Authority and thereafter they were returned to the

petitioner after demonetization.    For all these reasons this Court finds

that this petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, following order :-



                                   ORDER

(i)        This Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).



(ii)       The exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks

           from the date of receipt of this order.
                                           (4)                     wp2626.17




06.                Learned Advocate Mr. Adwant submits that this exercise can

be done by the RBI, Nagpur Office.



07.                The petitioner to approach respondent/RBI at Nagpur within a

period of four weeks from today for exchange of the notes and comply

with the formalities as required under law.



08.                This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.




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


snk/2026/Aug26/wp2626.17