Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two review petitions filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking review of a common order passed in three writ petitions from 2016. The original petitioners had sought enforcement of an order dated 9th September 2014 passed by the Minister of State for Revenue, directing the State to refund amounts deposited by them for taking on lease three different sand ghats. The petitioners contended that due to intervening circumstances beyond their control, they could not work the sand ghats to full capacity before the lease ended, and thus proportionate amounts were liable to be refunded. The Minister accepted this contention and passed the refund order. The State filed review petitions, and during hearing, the Additional Government Pleader sought time to obtain instructions, tendering a communication dated 22nd August 2023 requesting eight weeks. The court, however, refused the request, noting that the original petitioners had been waiting since 2016 for the refund and that granting further time would cause injustice. The court dismissed the review petitions, thereby upholding the enforcement of the ministerial order for refund.
Headnote
A) Review Jurisdiction - Delay and Injustice - Refusal of Adjournment - The court refused to grant time to the State to obtain instructions, holding that doing so would cause injustice to the original petitioners who have been waiting since 2016 for enforcement of a ministerial order directing refund of proportionate lease amounts for sand ghats that could not be fully worked due to circumstances beyond their control. (Paras 3-5)
B) Administrative Law - Enforcement of Ministerial Order - Refund of Lease Amount - The court upheld the order of the Minister of State for Revenue dated 9th September 2014 directing refund of amounts deposited by lessees of sand ghats, where the lessees could not fully excavate due to intervening circumstances. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petitions filed by the State seeking time to obtain instructions should be granted, given the peculiar facts and circumstances where the original petitioners have been waiting since 2016 for refund of amounts deposited for sand ghat leases.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the review petitions, refusing to grant time to the State, and upheld the enforcement of the ministerial order for refund.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- Injustice due to delay
- Enforcement of ministerial order
- Refund of proportionate lease amount
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (08) 108
Review Petition (ST) No. 29872 of 2019 in Writ Petition No. 13323 of 2016 and Review Petition (ST) No. 29869 of 2019 in Writ Petition No. 12380 of 2016
Sunil B. Shukre, Manish Pitale
Mr. A.I. Patel, Additional G.P. with Ms. R.M. Shiinde AGP for the Petitioners; Mr. K.N. Shermale for the sole respondent
The State of Maharashtra through Additional Chief Secretary Revenue and Forest Department and The Collector, Ahmednagar
Ajay Rajendra Pawar and Fulchand Kondiba Khade
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review petitions filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking review of a common order passed in three writ petitions from 2016, which enforced a ministerial order directing refund of amounts deposited for sand ghat leases.
Remedy Sought
The State sought time to obtain instructions and ultimately review of the order directing refund.
Filing Reason
The State filed review petitions against the order enforcing the Minister's refund direction.
Previous Decisions
The Minister of State for Revenue passed an order on 9th September 2014 directing refund of proportionate amounts deposited by the original petitioners for sand ghat leases. The writ petitions filed in 2016 sought enforcement of that order, and a common order was passed in their favor.
Issues
Whether the review petitions should be granted time to obtain instructions, given the delay and potential injustice to original petitioners.
Submissions/Arguments
The State, through the AGP, sought time of eight weeks to obtain necessary instructions, tendering a communication dated 22nd August 2023.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that granting further time to the State would cause injustice to the original petitioners who have been waiting since 2016 for the refund, and therefore the review petitions were dismissed.
Judgment Excerpts
In normal course, we would have granted the request as made in the communication, Document-A, which seeks time of eight weeks for obtaining necessary instructions. But having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that we would be doing injustice to the original petitioners, if we accede to such a request made on behalf of the State Government.
Procedural History
The original petitioners filed three writ petitions in 2016 seeking enforcement of the Minister's order dated 9th September 2014. A common order was passed in their favor. The State then filed review petitions in 2019. On 23rd August 2023, the court heard the review petitions and dismissed them.
