Writ petition No. 3168 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3168 of 2010 Shirish Prabhakar Wani Age : 55 Sex : Male 6 A Mahabal Colonyu Jalgaon Jalgaon Petitioner Versus 1] The State Of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] District Collector Jalgaon, Tq. And dist. Jalgaon. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE,JJ. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER B.R. GAVAI, J] : 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2] A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner's father, namely, Shri P.D. Wani, who, at the relevant time was working as Tahsildar and Shri S.S. Patil, who was working as a Godown Keeper for misappropriation of about Rs. 32 Lakhs in the year 1995. Writ petition No. 3168 of 2010 2 3] The petitioner's father died on 23rd April, 2004. It appears that subsequently, as a consequence thereof, the departmental proceedings against the petitioner's father came to an end. Subsequently, the proceedings against Shri S.S. Patil, were also dropped and the charge on the property of the said Shri S.S. Patil came to be lifted. Since the charge on the property of the petitioner's father has not been lifted, the petitioner has approached this court. 4] Vide order dated 15th April, 2010, we had issued notice to the respondents. On 20th October, 2010, we were informed by the learned AGP that the Collector has already moved the State Government for removing of the charge on the property of the petitioner's father. We had asked the learned AGP to file an affidavit explaining as to why decision has not been taken on the proposal submitted by the District Collector, within six weeks from the date of the order. 5] Today, when the matter is called out, the learned AGP states that he has received a communication wherein it is stated that the proposal is being processed and an appropriate decision would be taken within a period of 8 weeks. When the charges against another delinquent have been dropped and when the charge on the property of another delinquent has already been lifted, we see no reason as to why charge on the property of the petitioner's father should not be lifted. As a matter of fact, the departmental proceedings have come to an end after the death of the petitioner's father. It appears that the State Government has unnecessarily Writ petition No. 3168 of 2010 3 sitting tight over the issue pertaining to removing the charge on the property of petitioner's father when the District Collector has already recommended the same to be done. On account of procedural delays in the office of the respondent No.1, the charge on the property of the petitioner's father has not been removed. 6] We, therefore, allow the petition and direct the respondent No.1 to sanction the proposal submitted by the Collector for removal of the charge on the property of the petitioner's father within a period of 4 weeks from today. Rule made absolute in above terms with no orders as to costs. [R.M. BORDE,J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp Writ petition No. 3168 of 2010 4