H.M. STONE METAL SUPPLIER THROUGH YUSUF SAIFUDEEN SAIFI AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:42879

                                                      1
                                                                      946-wp-8898-2024

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 8898 OF 2024

                     H.M. Stone Metal Supplier Through Yusuf Saifudeen Saifi And
                                                 Others
                                                VERSUS
                          State Of Maharashtra Through Collector And Another
                                                   ...
                     Mr. Amol Sawant h/f Mr. U. A. Bhadgaonkar, Advocate for the
                     Petitioners
                     Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondents-State
                                                  …..
                                          CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                             DATED : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

                     P.C. :-

                     .         Heard learned advocate Mr. Amol Sawant h/f Mr. U. A.

                     Bhadgaonkar, for the petitioners and Mr. R. K. Ingole, learned

                     Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents-authority.

                     2.        The petitioners are running a stone crusher at the

                     respective site under a license granted by the state authorities.

                     On 05.02.2021, the Tahsildar, Dhule (Rural) issued a notice to

                     the petitioners contending that the electricity consumption at

                     the site showed consumption of 48693 units during the period

                     from April 2020 to December 2020.

                     3.        The Tahsildar applied formula of 18 units per brass and

                     opined that the petitioners have excavated earth material to

                     the extent of 2705 brass. It was further contended that the
                                2
                                                    946-wp-8898-2024

petitioners had deposited royalty in respect of 1000 brass,

whereas the actual excavation was to the extent of 2705 brass.

The Tahsildar therefore called upon the petitioners to pay

additional royalty in respect of 1705 brass within the

stipulated period, or to face consequences.

4.    Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner instituted

Regular Civil Suit no.43 of 2021 in the Court of learned Civil

Judge Senior Division, Dhule seeking declaration that the

notice dated 05.02.2021 be declared as illegal. A further

prayer is also made in the suit seeking an injunction

restraining the respondent/authorities from taking any action

pursuant to the notice        dated 05.02.2021.         The State

Authorities appeared and filed their written statement. On the

basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues,

taking recourse to the order 14 of the Civil Procedure Code.

The issues that were framed are as thus:

      1.    Whether plaintiffs prove that, the notice
      dated 05.02.2021 issued by defendants is illegal,
      ultra-vires and is liable to be set aside ?

      2.    Whether plaintiffs prove that, defendants
      have initiated illegal action against them for
      recovery of royalty amount ?
                                 3
                                                946-wp-8898-2024

         3.   Are plaintiffs entitled for the Declaration
         claim ?
         4.   Are plaintiffs entitled for the Perpetual
         Injunction claim ?
         5.   What Order and Decree ?


5.       Mr. Amol Sawant         submits that, this Court vide

judgment and order dated 17.04.2017 in Writ Petition

No.7036 of 2016 Principal Seat at Bombay, has clarified that

the State Authorities cannot impose royalty on the basis of

consumption of electricity. The Court further clarified that the

royalty can be imposed and recovered only in accordance with

the circulars issued by the State Government from time to

time. Thus, he would submit that in the light of the settled

law, the subject matter notice needs to be quashed and set

aside.


6.       The Petitioner wished that the Trial Court ought to have

framed issue as to whether the defendant could justify the

impugned notice in the light of the Judgment and Order

rendered by this Court (supra). However, the plaintiff felt

aggrieved by the burden cast upon the plaintiff to prove that

the notice was illegal.
                                4
                                                946-wp-8898-2024

7.        Having apprehended that the issues framed would fall

deficit to adjudicate legality of the notice dated 05.02.2021

without testing it in the light of the orders passed by this

Court, an application came to be filed at Exhibit-75 by the

petitioners for recasting of the issues or for framing additional

issues.

8.    The petitioners requested that the burden levied upon

the petitioners to prove that the notice was illegal and wrong

be removed, and the defendant be called upon to prove how

the notice was legal one.

9.    The said application came to be turned down vide the

impugned order. Trial court while rejecting the application

held that the burden lies on the plaintiff and that it is for the

plaintiff to demonstrate as to how the notice dated

05.02.2021 is illegal. Observing this, the said application came

to be rejected by the trial court on 10.06.2024. As against the

said order the petitioners are before this court.

10.   During the course of hearing, Mr. Amol Sawant would

submit that the concern of the petitioner is that the Trial Court

should apply the law laid down by this Court in the cited Writ

Petition. It is apparent that the petitioners are the plaintiffs

the suit and have challenged the validity and legality of notice
                                  5
                                                   946-wp-8898-2024

dated 05.02.2021. Obviously, the first issue framed by the

trial court casts the burden upon the plaintiffs to prove that

the notice is illegal, ultra vires and liable to be set aside.

11.   In the light of the obvious fact that the law on this point

is already settled, the Trial Court is bound to decide the suit

accordingly. Mr. Sawant, at this juncture urges that the Trial

Court be directed to frame a preliminary issue as regards to

the validity of the impugned notice in the light of the law laid

down by this Court (supra). The expectation of the plaintiff as

expressed by Mr. Sawant is legitimate, the only issue is about

the procedure.

12.     I am of the considered view that the interest of the

petitioners would be served by issuing some clarificatory

directions to the trial Court. Hence, the petition stands

disposed of with following directions:

                              ORDER
       a.     The Trial Court to frame a preliminary
       issue as regards to validity of the impugned
       notice in the light of the judgment and order
       dated 17.04.2017 in Writ Petition No.7036 of
       2016 Principal Seat at Bombay; and shall decide
       in accordance with Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code
       of Civil Procedure;
                                   6
                                                   946-wp-8898-2024

         b.      If the Trial Court arrives at conclusion that
         the findings on the Preliminary issue hold the
         impugned notice in contravention with the law
         laid down by the        judgment and order dated
         17.04.2017 in Writ Petition No.7036 of 2016
         Principal Seat at Bombay; the rest issues be
         answered accordingly.

         c.      The Writ Petition stands disposed of.




                                       ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

Rushikesh/2026