1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5441 OF 2010 Devidas Sham Vasave, Age : 53 Years, Occu. : Service, Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Collector Office, Jalgaon. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 42. 2. The Collector, Nandurbar. .. Respondents Shri S. D. Dhongde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER P. V. HARDAS, J.] : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of respondents. 2. The facts which are germane for decision of this petition may briefly stated thus : By a communication/order dated 19.03.2010 the petitioner was called upon to deposit Rs. 3,35,000/- in two installments with the authorities. The aforesaid deposit was on account of alleged unauthorized withdrawal of the amount by the petitioner and not submitting proper bills and not complying with the Rules relating to the expenditure. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order calling upon him to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,35,000/- in two installments rushed to the Aurangabad Bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Before the Tribunal at the time of hearing of the original application, the applicant unreservedly expressed his desire to deposit the aforesaid amount but prayed for ten installments. The petitioner further 3 contended before the Tribunal that on account of the suspension, the petitioner was not in a sound financial condition to reimburse the Government by depositing the said amount in installments less than ten. The Tribunal considered all aspects of the matter and by its order dated 09.04.2010 directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount in six installments of Rs. 50,000/- each and the last installment being of Rs. 35,000/-. 3. The petitioner being still aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal filed Misc. Application No. 194/2010 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the said application holding that there was no cause for altering the number of installments prescribed by the Tribunal. The petitioner being thus aggrieved by the said order has filed the present writ petition. 4. The petitioner has also expressed before us his genuine desire to refund the amount of Rs. 3,35,000/-. The petitioner however, submitted before us that on account of the fact that the petitioner has now been placed under suspension and also facing a criminal prosecution the order of the Tribunal calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 50,000/- is a onerous responsibility which the petitioner is not in a position to discharge. Mr. Dhongde, 4 learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated before us that the petitioner is in a position to deposit Rs. 20,000/- per month towards the refund of the said amount. The petitioner has also established his bonafides by depositing three installments of Rs. 50,000/- each. Thus from the total amount which the petitioner was called on to refund i. e. Rs. 3,35,000/-, the petitioner had already deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- and only balance amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- remains to be paid by the petitioner. 5. In such circumstances, according to us this petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside to the extent of the installments. We, therefore, allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal to the extent by which the Tribunal granted installments of Rs. 50,000/- each and the last installment of Rs. 35,000/- and in its place we direct that the remaining amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- shall be repaid by the petitioner in eight equal installments of Rs. 20,000/- each and the last installment being of Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner shall scrupulously deposit the said amount in the installments as prescribed and shall not commit any default. In the event any default being committed, the respondent would be at liberty to 5 take such steps as available in law for recovery of the outstanding amount. 6. The rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/June 10