1 wp 303.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 303 OF 2011 Santosh S/o Phulchand Deshmane, Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Keshav Nagar, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, (The copy to be served on G.P. High Court of Bombay Bench At Aurangabad) 2. Amin Khan S/o Hasan Khan Pathan, Deceased through L.R.s 2-A Jamila Amin Khan Pathan, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Household, 2-B Asif Khan AminKhan Pathan, Age : 26 Years, Occu. : Household, 2-C Kasam Khan Aminkhan Pathan, Age : 22 Years, Occu. : Business, 2-D Johar Aminkhan Pathan, Age : 19 Years, Occu. : Business, 2 wp 303.11 All Nos. 2-A to 2-D R/o Pathan Vasti, Post Chandpuri, Tq. Malshiras, District Solapur. .. Respondents Mrs. M. S. Mhase, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. G. Shelke, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent Nos. 2-A to 2-D served. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . The notice was issued for final disposal of the present writ petition. 2. Mrs. Mhase, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order passed is erroneous as during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant had died, as such appeal itself abated. The learned counsel further states that as was agreed on the first date of hearing the information was to be supplied within one month, the same was complied and the information was supplied within one month. The learned counsel further submits that before the appeal was filed, the petitioner was already relieved from the said office i. e. he was relieved on 30th May, 2008. In view of this fact the impugned 3 wp 303.11 order imposing cost of Rs. 25,000/- could not have been passed against the petitioner. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader supports the order passed and states that it was a willful act on the part of the petitioner in not furnishing the information and for that purpose, the petitioner has been rightly saddled with the cost of Rs. 25,000/-. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, no error has been committed by the authority in imposing the said cost. 4. The fact that the original appellant before the authority had expired is not controverted. Also it transpires that the petitioner had been relieved from the office prior to the filing of the appeal, as such, the acts of omission thereafter cannot be attributed to the petitioner. 5. From the conspectus of the factual matrix, it does not appear that there was any deliberate and willful act of omission on the part of the petitioner in not providing the information. 6. In view of above, I do not see any propriety in imposing the 4 wp 303.11 cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner. From the record it also does not appear that the notice of appeal was served upon the petitioner. This can be considered in view of the fact that he was already relieved from the said office prior to the filing of the appeal. 7. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B". No costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11