1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3031 of 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1359 of 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3031 OF 2010 Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Sonari Taluka Uran, Dist. Raigad. ....Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. C.G.Gavnekar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Milan Bhise, advocate for the respondent/intervener. Mrs. J.S.Pawar, addl. GP for respondents 1-4. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED:- MAY 07, 2010 P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties in this Petition as well as Counsel for the Intervenor in Civil Application No. 1359/2010. 2. The grievance made in this Petition is that the Petitioners who are 11 Grampanchayats are entitled to recover substantial amounts towards property tax from the Intervenors, which has remained unpaid inspite of demand made in that behalf. To facilitate the recovery of the said amount, the officials of 2 Grampanchayats are willing to follow the procedure provided by law but apprehend security issues while discharging their official duty. In view of the said apprehension the Petitioners requested the Commissioner of Police by their letter dated 2nd May, 2010 to provide necessary assistance of (1) Police sub- Inspector (ii) one police constable (male) and (iii) one police constable (female) on payment of necessary charges, if any. However, this request has been turned down by the office of the Police Commissioner, Navi Mumbai vide communication dated 3rd March, 2010. We would avoid recording the reasons stated in this communication as in our opinion the same are very casual if not irresponsible, to deny the request of the officials of the Grampanchayat to enable them to discharge their official duties. 3. Suffice it to observe that even though the Petitioners were willing to fulfill all the requirements including payment of necessary charges, the Commissioner of Police rejected the request of the Petitioners for reasons which cannot be countenanced. We have no hesitation in acceding to the relief claimed by the Petitioners that on Petitioners complying with necessary formalities and payment of charges, if any, the officials of the Petitioners should be provided security as demanded to enable them to discharge their statutory duties. 3 4. The Intervenor before us submits that the Petitioners have failed to disclose the fact that the demand made by the Petitioners is subject matter of challenge by way of appeal before the Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad. From the Application filed before us by the Intervenor, it is noticed that the total outstanding amount payable by the Intervenor is to the extent of around Rs. 130 Crores. The fact that the appeal is pending does not take the matter any further. It is conceded that as of today there is no interim relief in favour of the Intervenors in relation to the demand made by the Petitioners. On the other hand, the Petitioners contend that the appeals cannot proceed further for want of application for stay of demand. 5. In such a situation, the only course open which would secure the interest of all concerned, is to give four weeks time to the intervenor either to approach the Appellate Authority and pray for stay of the demand made by the Petitioners or in the alternative to deposit the amount of Rs. 129,57,35,277.94/- in this Court forthwith on expiry of four weeks time, failing which it will be open to the Petitioners to pursue their remedy against the Intervenors for recovery of the amount payable by them towards property taxes. In pursuit of that action, if the Petitioners want any security facility, we have no hesitation in taking the view that it will be the duty of the Commissioner of Police, Navi mumbai to ensure 4 that proper security is provided to the officials of the Petitioners for that purpose, provided the Petitioners comply with necessary formalities and pay charges as may be required. 6. We may place on record that in terms of our order dated 30th April, 2010, we expected the Chief Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra as also the Principal Secretary – Home Department, Government of Maharashtra to file personal affidavit in the context of the allegations made in the Petition, particularly dealing with the casual manner in which the request of the Petitioners came to be rejected by the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai. However, inspite of that opportunity no affidavit has been filed either by the Chief Secretary or the Principal Secretary-Home Department. To observe sobriety we only deprecate this approach of the said officials who are holding such high offices. We expect that they will not repeat this in future lest the Court may have no other option but to initiate appropriate action. 7. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, Writ Petition as well as Application is disposed of on the above terms. (R.M.SAVAN T, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)