-: 1 :- wp- 1758/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1758 OF 2011 with WRIT PETITION NO. 1759 OF 2011 Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited. ..Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Milind Sathe, Senior counsel alongwith Ms. D’souza i/b A. S. Dayal & Associates for the petitioners. Ms. P.S.Cardozo, AGP for Respondent – State. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 14, 2011. P. C. : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 2. Heard Mr. Milind Sathe, Senior counsel for the petitioners and Ms. P.S.Cardozo, AGP for Respondent – State. The learned counsel appearing for the respective parties submitted that both the petitions are identical and can be heard together. In view of this, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The facts of Writ Petition No. 1758 of 2011, in short, are as srp -: 2 :- wp- 1758/11 under : The petitioner received notice from respondent no.4 on 26/5/2010 issued under section 27 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 alleging that they were guilty of felling of trees and therefore calling upon them to show cause why the penalty should not be imposed upon them. The petitioner replied to this notice by giving reply on 30/6/2010. Respondent no.4 was not satisfied by the explanation given by the petitioner. Therefore by his order dated 23rd September 2010, imposed penalty of Rs. 43,53,242/- holding that the tress were fell without prior permission of the competent authority. . The petitioner filed an appeal against the above order of respondent no.4 before respondent no.3 – Additional Collector by filing RTS Appeal No. 270/2010. However, the appeal came to be rejected by order dated 20/1/2011. The petitioner thereafter preferred Second Appeal before Respondent no.2 on 11/02/2011. Respondent no.2 however by his order dated 11/02/2011 directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the penalty amount with the Tehsildar, Shrigonda. It was further observed that only after the deposit of the aforesaid amount is made, the petitioner’s appeal will be heard on merits. This order is impugned in the present petition. -: 3 :- wp- 1758/11 5. Mr. Sathe, learned senior counsel pointed the order passed by respondent no.2 on 25/2/2011, ie., subsequent to the date of filing of this writ petition. The said order is annexed at Exhibit-D to the petitioner’s affidavit. The said order dated 25/2/2011 discloses that the petitioner after passing of the impugned order requested the Additional Commissioner to allow them to furnish bank guarantee for the 50% of the penalty amount and this request is granted by the Additional Commissioner. 6. Learned AGP submitted that the order passed by Respondent no.2 on 25/2/2011 cannot be considered since it was passed subsequent to the date of impugned order. She also submitted that an alternate remedy of revision before the State Government is also available to the petitioner and therefore no interference is called for. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, I find that the impugned order dated 11/2/2011 was passed by respondent no.2 on the basis that some instructions were given in the meeting held on 31.7.2010 between the Divisional Commissioner and the Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue). The fact remains that the Additional Commissioner on 25/2/2011 allowed the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee equivalent to 50% of the penalty amount. The respondents in present petitions -: 4 :- wp- 1758/11 cannot contend that this subsequent order dated 25/2/2011 is non- est and without jurisdiction. In any case, the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish the bank guarantee in the sum equivalent to 50% of the penalty amount. This, in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, will sub-serve the interest of justice. So far as the alternative remedy to the petitioner is concerned, in my opinion, in peculiar circumstances of the case, revision is not an alternate remedy. 8. In above facts, both the petitions are disposed of by passing following order. -: O R D E R :- (i) The impugned orders dated 11/2/2011 passed by Respondent no.2 are modified to the extent that the petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee of any nationalised bank in the sum equivalent to 50% of the penalty amount. (ii) The Petitioner shall apply to the Tehsildar, Shrigonda/ Karjat for format of the bank guarantee within a week from today. The Tehsildar within the period of one week of application, shall furnish format of the bank guarantee, on payment of statutory fees. (iii) The petitioner shall furnish the bank guarantee of the -: 5 :- wp- 1758/11 sum equivalent to 50% of the penalty amount within the period of four weeks from today. (iv) In the event of petitioner furnishing bank guarantee as stated above, respondent no.2 shall decide the petitioner’s appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible. (iv) In case the outcome of the appeals preferred by the petitioner is adverse to the interest of petitioner, the same shall not be implemented for the period of two weeks from the date of communication of the same to the petitioner. (RANJIT MORE, J.)