(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10687 OF 2010 Giriraj Enterprises, Registered Partnership Firm, Having its office at Malpani House, I.G. Road, Sangamner - 422 605, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Additional Collector, Ahmednagar, Collector's Office, Ahmednagar. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik. 3. The Tahsildar, Rahata, Dist. : Ahmednagar. 4. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Revenue Secretary. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader, for for respondent nos.1 to 4. (2) ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court, in peculiar facts and circumstances. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was found eligible for certain incentives under the scheme framed by the State Government, known as "New Package Scheme of Incentives For Tourism Projects July 2000 to March 2005" (For short, "TIS-2000 Scheme"). It is the contention of the petitioner, that under the said scheme, the petitioner is entitled for exemption from Entertainment Tax/Amusement Tax stamp duty, Electricity duty, etc. 3. It is further case of the petitioner, that relying on the assurance given under the said scheme, the petitioner has started Water Park at Shirdi (Taluka : Rahata, District : Ahmednagar). It is, however, submitted that though the petitioner is entitled for eligibility certificate and though he has applied for grant of (3) eligibility certificate, the Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation, at the relevant time, had not issued the eligibility certificate which, according to the petitioner, has subsequently been issued after orders passed by this Court, in Writ Petition No. 3412/2009. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that during the pendency of the proceedings for grant of eligibility certificate, the respondent no.1 has levied the duty and has also imposed penalty. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred an appeal. The appellate authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner had granted stay to the recovery on condition that the petitioner deposits 20 % amount. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, that the petitioner has accordingly deposited 20 % amount with the Tahsildar. Subsequently, the appeal has been dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred a revision application before the State Government. It is submitted that in the revision application itself, a prayer for stay to recovery was made. It is, however, submitted that on account of political reasons, as there was no Ministry, the prayer of the present petitioner for grant of stay to the recovery could not be heard by the revisional authority. It is, therefore, submitted that during the pendency of the revision, it is just and necessary that the recovery against the petitioner is stayed. (4) 5. The petition is vehemently opposed by the learned Government Pleader, on the ground that since the appellate authority has also dismissed the appeal, there cannot be stay to the recovery of dues of the State. 6. As already noticed herein above, the petition arises out of peculiar facts. Though the petitioner has a revisional remedy available to him under the law, the orders for grant of stay to the recovery could not be passed since there was no Ministry in the State. It can also be seen that the petitioner has also been granted eligibility certificate under the TIS-2000 Scheme by the competent authority. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, we find that it would be in the interest of justice, that the revisional authority is directed to decide the revision of the petitioner within a period of two months from today, and till then, the recovery of penalty is stayed, on condition that the entire amount under duty is paid by the petitioner. 7. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The State Government is directed to decide the revision filed by the present petitioner, within a period of two months from today. (5) (ii) During the pendency of revision, there shall be stay to the recovery of penalty, on condition that the petitioner deposits the entire amount towards duty, with the respondent no.3 / Tahsildar, within a period of two weeks from today. Needless to state, that the petitioner shall be entitled for adjustment of the amount already deposited. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 9. Certified Copy expedited. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10687