M/S. J.K. TRADERS, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI JAVED IQBAL KHAN, R/O MAHAL WARD, BHANDARA, TAH. AND DISTRICT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, IN THE MINISTRY OF REVENUE AND FOREST, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the order of the respondent No. 2 District Collector, Bhandara, dated 25.4.2016 forfeiting the security deposit and the bank guarantee of the petitioner, as also the order of the Tahsildar, dated 17.5.2016 imposing penalty of Rs.2,06,02,400.00 on the petitioner.

(3.) In pursuance of a tender floated by the respondents for excavation of the sand from the Sand Ghat at Pauni, the petitioner participated in the tender and was allotted the Sand Ghat. The petitioner deposited the entire amount as per the bid and was excavating the sand, when it was informed by the respondent No. 4 that the petitioner was found to be illegally excavating the sand by poclain machine and therefore, it was liable for action. The petitioner was asked to show cause by the notice, dated 4.4.2016 as to why the security deposit should not be forfeited and why the allotment of the Sand Ghat should not be cancelled. The petitioner furnished its explanation denying the allegations levelled against it. By an order, dated 25.4.2016 the Collector forfeited the security deposit of Rs.6,72,570.00 and the bank guarantee of Rs.1,60,000.00. By the said order, the Collector also directed the respondent No. 3 Sub Divisional Officer, Bhandara to release the JCB machine seized by him and to grant permission to the petitioner to operate the Sand Ghat after the petitioner furnishes a fresh bank guarantee and security deposit. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner was ready to furnish a fresh bank guarantee and also deposit the amount towards security deposit again, the respondent Tahsildar without issuance of show-cause-notice to the petitioner and without granting an opportunity of hearing to it, by the impugned order, dated 17.5.2016 imposed a penalty of Rs.2,06,02,400/on the petitioner under the provisions of Sec. 48 (7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.