Bombay High Court
M/S KALPATARU GINNING AND PRESSING COMPANY PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR J A KASAVAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court quashed the Authority's order and remitted the matter for re‑examination with a fair opportunity of hearing.
Summary
The petitioner, Kalpataru Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging an order of the concerned Authority that had allowed an application by the APMC on the ground that the petitioner had not produced receipts or supporting documents. The petitioner subsequently filed an affidavit‑in‑reply along with the required receipts, which were placed on record. Both parties agreed that the matter should be sent back to the Authority for verification of the newly produced documents. The High Court, noting the submission of the receipts, quashed the Authority’s earlier order and directed it to re‑examine the application, ensuring a fair hearing for both the petitioner and the APMC. The Court ordered that the Authority decide the matter in accordance with law and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Authority's order allowing the APMC's application should be set aside in view of the petitioner's later production of receipts.
- Whether the matter should be remitted to the Authority for verification of documents and a fresh hearing.
Subjects
- Writ Petition
- Quashing Order
- Remand
- APMC
- Receipt Verification
- Fair Hearing
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:10000
55 WP No.6044.2017
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6044 OF 2017
M/S KALPATARU GINNING AND PRESSING COMPANY PVT LTD
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR J A KASAVA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay B. Patil
AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. A. D. Wange
Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. S. K. Chavan
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Date : 4th March, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for respective sides.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tendered an
affidavit-in-reply alongwith the receipts, which have now been placed
on record. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Authority
previously allowed the application filed by the APMC primarily on the
grounds that no receipts or supporting documents had been produced
during those proceedings.
3. In light of the fact that the petitioner has now submitted
these documents, both counsels have reached a consensus that the
55 WP No.6044.2017
-2-
matter should be remitted back to the Authority for verifying these
receipt.
4. Accordingly, the order passed by the concerned Authority is
hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is at liberty to produce the
relevant receipts and documents before the Authority for its
consideration.
5. The Authority is directed to re-examine the application,
ensuring that both the petitioner and the APMC are provided a fair
opportunity to be heard and the Authority shall decide the matter in
accordance with the law.
6. With aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Omkar Joshi
Checking your session…