MAHESH SHANKARRAO PATNEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. HONBLE MINISTER REVENUE AND FOREST DEPT. AND ORS.

                      1                         93-WP-4956-2026 (C)

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  WRIT PETITION NO. 4956 OF 2026

Mahesh Shankarrao Patne                         …...Petitioner
      Vs.
The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.                 …...Respondents

                                ...
Mr. Anant Vadgaonkar i/b Mr. Ashish Chavan, Advocate for
Petitioner.
Mr. J. P. Patil, AGP for Respondent-State.
                                 ...


                   CORAM :    SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                     DATE :   5TH OCTOBER, 2026.

ORDER :


.     Heard Mr. Anant Vadgaonkar, learned counsel appearing fo the

Petitioner.


2.    The Petitioner is challenging the concurrent findings of fact

recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Collector, Commissioner and

the Minister, rejecting the claim on the ground of limitation at

various stages.


3.    Mr. Anant Vadgaonkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner,

submits that the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar on
                        2                             93-WP-4956-2026 (C)

10.03.2015 is perverse and arbitrary, as no opportunity was given to

him. The notice dated 07.01.2015 was predetermined and, without

extending any opportunity of hearing, the Petitioner was called upon

to pay a huge amount of Rs. 82,54,400/-.


4.    It is further submitted that the first appellate authority, i.e., the

Sub-Divisional Officer, also did not appreciate the grievance and

rejected the appeal on the ground of delay, which perpetuated the

illegality. A death occurred in the family, and the reasons assigned in

paragraph No. 7 of the application have not been properly dealt

with. The authorities below committed an error of jurisdiction in

rejecting the applications for condonation of delay.


5.    It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay cost and the

delay be condoned and opportunity be extended.


6.    Learned AGP appearing for the Respondent would point out

that the show-cause notice dated 07.01.2015 elaborately refers to

the opportunity extended to the Petitioner. The Petitioner failed to

file his reply, and the authority was constrained to impose the

penalty, which is in accordance with law.


7.    It is further submitted that the delay is inordinate and no
                        3                          93-WP-4956-2026 (C)

cogent reasons are assigned. It is further submitted that the illegal

excavation is to the tune of 10,318 brass, which cannot be interfered

with lightly.


8.    I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. The

notice issued on 07.01.2015 by the Tahsildar would indicate that the

Petitioner was called upon to file his reply. The reply was not filed,

and, therefore, another notice was issued calling upon him to tender

his explanation and remain present for the hearing on 14.01.2015. It

is not the case of the Petitioner that he had filed a reply or remained

present for the hearing and disclosed the reasons. It is also not the

case of the Petitioner that the show-cause notices issued by the

authorities were not served upon him. The excavation alleged

against the Petitioner is to the extent of 10,318 brass of black stone.

When an opportunity was given, it was not availed of. The

authorities cannot, therefore, be blamed for violation of the

principles of natural justice.


9.    My attention is adverted to the wordings used in the notice

dated 07.01.2015, which, according to the learned counsel for the

Petitioner, would indicate the authority was predetermined or

prejudiced. The notice would, in unequivocal terms, refers that the
                       4                           93-WP-4956-2026 (C)

Petitioner was called upon to submit say. Only the wordings that he

was called upon to respond in the matter pertaining to the penalty

would not infer making of the mind before any adjudication. I find

no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner.


10.   The Tahsildar decided the matter on 10.03.2015, imposing the

penalty, and an appeal against the same was preferred on

13.01.2016, belatedly. A separate application was filed for

condonation of delay. The Assistant Collector, vide order dated

07.04.2016, rejected the application for condonation of delay.

Thereafter, the Petitioner took 7 years and 4 months to prefer a

further appeal before the Additional Collector. The delay is

inordinate, and the reasons assigned in the applications have been

dealt with by the Collector and, by a reasoned order, the application

was rejected on 11.11.2024. It cannot be countenanced that, due to

old age and constant medication, the Petitioner could not approach

the appellate forum in time.


11.   Similarly, the reason of lockdown due to the unprecedented

pandemic of COVID-19 cannot be accepted. In the order, the

Additional Collector has taken a reasonable and probable view,

which cannot be interfered with.
                          5                            93-WP-4956-2026 (C)

12.      The order passed by the Additional Collector is confirmed by

the Commissioner, as well as the learned Minister. There are

concurrent findings of fact.


13.      I do not find that there is any perversity or patent illegality. No

interference is called for. The matter pertains to excavation of stone,

and the Petitioner is found to have excavated 10,318 quantity of

brass, which is very serious. The Petitioner is casual in prosecuting

the matter.


14.      Under these circumstances, no leniency can be shown. Hence,

the Writ Petition is dismissed.




                                   [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]


Suresh