1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.6352 OF 2007 Raghunath Apparao Patil And Others. ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra And Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. A.B. Kale, Advocate for petitioner. Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 - served. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 10th JUNE, 2010 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioners challenge notice dated 31-10-2007 (Exhibit "G"). The petitioners state that they have filed reply to the said notice on dated 3-11-2007. 2 3) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that contempt proceedings were initiated against the officers and with a revengeful attitude the notices have been issued to the petitioners and their Advocate. The date of possession was stated to be 11-9-2000 in the Award passed by the Collector. Our attention has been invited to the various proceedings initiated by the petitioners before this Court. Some of them are pending, according to the counsel. 4) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed affidavit in reply through Deputy Collector (EGS) Latur. We have perused the same. According to the deponent, the possession certificate submitted by the petitioner was not issued from their office and the possession certificate submitted by the 3 petitioners in Writ petition No.2029 of 2004 was fake and fabricated. 5) The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that, there is good reason for the Special Land Acquisition Officer to issue show cause notice as the possession certificate submitted by the petitioners was fake and fabricated document. 6) It seems that pursuant to the show cause notice the petitioners filed their reply but no further orders have been passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 7) In the facts of the case and after considering the submissions advanced, we find that the petitioners have merely challenged the show cause notice. It would be appropriate if the Collector Latur calls for the file and himself deals with the issue in respect of issuance of show cause notice. Therefore, at 4 this stage we are not inclined to interfere in the matter in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8) We, therefore, direct the Collector Latur to personally deal with the issue, as observed above, and dispose of the notice within six months from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioners are entitled to raise plea about maintainability of the show cause notice. 9) It is clarified that, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issues. All issues are kept open. 10) The writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (K.K. TATED, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.6352.07