1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6143 OF 2010 (Aniruddha H. Mandal vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. JUNE 09, 2011. Heard finally Shri Parsodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. The contention of the petitioner is that he never participated in auction of Sand Ghat conducted by the office of the Collector, Gondia and hence the demand of an amount of Rs.31,61,000/- made from him towards the auction of sand ghat at Mouza – Chadhuri (Bk.) Tahsil – Gondia, is incorrect. It is further urged that in any case the Collector, Gondia, has to initiate action in accordance with the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and impugned communication dated 19.11.2010 is not in accordance with law and, therefore, without jurisdiction. Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional GP has invited attention to reply affidavit to urge that the petitioner participated in auction and deposited initial amount of Rs.5,000/- and when his highest bid was 2 accepted, he did not deposit the initial amount of 25% and thereafter even the balance amount of 75%. According to her, in this situation, the Collector, Gondia has only informed the Collector, Nagpur, about these developments and said communication in no way caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Shri Parsodkar, learned counsel, on the other hand, wants to rely upon the documents produced on record by Government to show that those documents are not proper and have been fabricated. Prima facie perusal of communication dated 19.11.2010 itself reveals that the Collector, Gondia, has requested the Collector, Nagpur not to allot sand ghat to the petitioner at Nagpur till the entire amount of Rs.31,61,000/- towards sand ghat auction of Mouza Chadhuri (Bk) has been cleared by the petitioner. A copy of this communication is also addressed to him and in it he has been called upon to deposit that amount and in default, action in accordance with Maharashtra Land Revenue Code has been threatened. As we find that some disputed questions of fact arise and the direction has been issued without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, we direct Respondent No. 2 to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in the matter only thereafter. The petitioner shall file his say before Respondent No. 2 by 27.06.2011 and after giving him an opportunity of hearing, Respondent No. 2 shall pass 3 orders in accordance with the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, as early as possible and in any case by 15th July 2011. Till then no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents against the petitioner. It is also made clear that the communication dated 19.11.2010 shall not come in his way and shall not influence Respondent No. 2 in any manner in this process. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to Additional Government Pleader. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.