1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. C.A. No.8917/08 in Wri t Petition No.2325/2005 Rajnikant Daluram Borile & 4 others Vs. The State of Maharashtra & another. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. Bhangde, the Senior Counsel with Mr. Phadnavis, Adv. for the applicant. Mr. A.D. Sonak, AGP for respondents 1 to 5. Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 3rd December, 2008. 1. Heard Mr. Bhangde, the learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Phadnavis, the learned counsel for the applicant, who is the respondent no.6 in Writ Petition No.2325/2005. The applicant prays for review of our order dated 22/10/2008, on the following grounds:- a) In Writ Petition No. 2325/2005, there was no prayer for grant of interim relief. b) The applicant was not put on notice before 2 granting/refusing the prayer for interim relief and the applicant did not get any opportunity to advance the arguments to oppose the order of interim relief. c) The order, under review, is contrary to the principles of fair play and natural justice. d) The said order suffers from error of law apparent on the face of record. e) The interim relief granted is in the nature of final relief and it is fundamental principles of law that the interim relief is granted in the aid of final relief, and f) The Court has not recorded any reasons in support of the order of interim relief. 2. This petition was originally filed on 2.3.2005 and registered as PIL petition as it prayed for order to probe into the illegal mining activities in Yavatmal District and the loss of revenue therefrom and/or in alternative to set up an independent committee of experts to examine 3 the record so as to issuance of appropriate directions. The petitioners are residents of Yavatmal district and in the same district, the illegal mining was being carried out. When they approached this Court, the Collector, Yavatmal, had passed the order on 23.2.2005 and directed the applicant to remit an amount of Rs.1,43,19,388/- by way of penal charges. The said order was carried in Appeal No.10/MNL-37-2004-05 before the Additional Commissioner at Amravati. The said appeal was partly allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati, by his judgment dated 31.12.2005 during the pendency of this petition. The Additional Commissioner held that the appellant- applicant was liable to pay an amount of Rs 10901966/- and the balance amount of Rs. 34,17,422/- was not liable to be paid by him. The order of the Collector, which was under challenge in the appeal, was thus modified. The applicant approached the Revenue Minister with a Revision Application/Appeal and by the impugned 4 order dated 6.4.2006 the Revision/Appeal came to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Collector on 23.2.2005 as well as the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati on 31.12.2005. The Revenue Minister also directed to refund an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- to the applicant by the said order. The petitioner, therefore, amended the petition so as to challenge the order passed by the Revenue Minister. 3. The applicant caused his appearance through the Advocate on 4.9.2007 and for some reason or the other (law's delays) the petition remained pending for admission till it came up before us on 22.10.2008 on which date the learned counsel for the applicant (respondent no.6) was present before us. We passed the following order on 22.10.2008, after hearing all the learned counsel. “Rule . 5 Respondents waive service. By way of interim relief, the order passed by the Revenue Minister on 6.4.2006 is hereby stayed and the respondent no.6 is hereby directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 10901966/- with the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from today. On such deposit made by respondent no.6, the amount shall be invested in Fixed Deposit with a Nationalised Bank by the Registry of this Court, initially for a period of one year.” 4. It is thus clear that, by way of interim directions,, we have not granted the final relief, which is to quash and set aside the order passed by the Revenue Minister. The subject matter of challenge in this petition is illegal mining and the loss of revenue to the State Exchequer. The Collector had called upon the applicant to pay, by way of penalty, an amount of Rs. 1,43,19,388/- and in the appeal filed by the applicant under Section 257 of the M.L.R. Code, the Additional Commissioner, by a reasoned order, modified the order passed by the Collector and directed the applicant to pay to the State 6 Government an amount of Rs. 10901966/-. Whereas by the impugned order passed by the Revenue Minister, both these orders came to be set aside and, therefore, to protect the interest of the State Exchequer, we have directed to remit the amount as stated in the order passed in the Additional Commissioner on admitting the petition. The amount has been directed to be invested in a nationalised bank so that it earns interest. Obviously, if the petition fails, the amount deposited is to be refunded with interest accrued thereon to the petitioner. We, therefore, do not agree with the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that by directing the deposit of amount of Rs. 10901966/- we have granted relief in the nature of final relief and in any case stay to the impugned order is not a final relief. The direction to deposit the amount does not benefit the petitioner and they are aimed at protecting the interest of the revenue of the State Government, in case, the petition succeeds either fully or partly. This is a public 7 interest litigation petition and we may also treat as a public law petition and not an adversarial petition. 5. Hence, we do not find any merit in the grounds raised for review of the order dated 22.10.2008 and, therefore, this review petition must fail. The same is hereby rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.