INDRAJIT Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to the grounds taken in the petition, annexures thereto and order dated 14/10/2013 passed by the District Collector, Latur. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Latur (for short, "A.P.M.C") has given certificate on 13/08/2013 that, the petitioner purchased wheat from Market Yard. Latur. He invited our attention to Exhibit-G at Page-84 i.e. certificate issued by the A.P.M.C., Latur dated 13/08/2013. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further invited our attention to pages from 23 to 46 of the compilation of writ petition i.e., bills and submitted that, wheat was purchased from various traders. He further invited our attention at pages 47 and 48 of the compilation of writ petition i.e., copies of bills issued by 'Om Trading Company', and submits that, empty bags which were used to fill in wheat, were purchased from one 'Om Trading Company'. Learned Counsel also invited our attention to the say filed before the District Collector, Latur. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner did purchase wheat bags from traders operating within the jurisdiction of A.P.M.C. Latur, and to that effect, certificate is issued by A.P.M.C., Latur. It is submitted that, entire actions of the petitioner are lawful and transparent. It is further submitted that, the petitioner is ready to furnish solvent security in case wheat bags are released in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposed the prayers in the petition and submits that, all documents are considered by the District Collector, Latur. It is submitted that, the District Collector, Latur, after perusal of the say filed by the petitioner and also documents placed on record has passed appropriate order, therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned order.

(3.) We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State at length. With their able assistance we have perused the grounds taken in the petition, annexures thereto and the impugned order passed by the District Collector, Latur. On perusal of the order passed by the District Collector, Latur on 14/10/2013, it appears that, the petitioner did not satisfy the Collector how the empty bags having mark of different States on it, have come in possession of the petitioner. Upon perusal of copies of bills which are placed on record at pages 47 and 48 of the compilation of the writ petition, we find that said documents i.e., the copies of bills were not placed on record before the District Collector, Latur. Therefore, the District Collector, Latur had no occasion to look into those documents. It appears that, first time the petitioner has annexed copies of those bills with writ petition. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the argument of the petitioner on the basis of copies of bills issued by 'Om Trading Company' at pages 47 and 48 of the compilation of the writ petition. Apart from the copies of above mentioned two bills, it further appears that, the petitioner has not specifically invited attention of the District Collector, Latur to the certificate issued by A.P.M.C. Latur dated 13/08/2013.