Wp2402.11 1 SRS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2402/2011 Juhu Beach Khadye Peye Vikrete Co-operative Society Ltd. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr.V.B.Naik i/b Ram U.Singh for petitioners Mr.K.R.Belosey A Panel Counsel for Res.State Mr.N.M.Dagli i/b M.V.Kini & Co.for Res.5 CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATED : 16th December,2012 P.C. 1 The petitioner is a co-operative society of the hawkers doing their business in Juhu area in the city of Mumbai. The area in question where they are doing their business is allotted to them in August, 2006. The concerned hawkers at the time of occupying the area initially paid Rs.35,000/- as a cost of new structure of the stall in which they are doing business and were required to pay rent amount of the occupying area to the appropriate authority i.e. Air Port Authority as well as the Collector. It is unfortunate that even though the concerned hawkers were allotted the area as back as in the year 2006 they have Wp2402.11 2 avoided the payment of occupation charge/rent. It is equally interesting to note that neither the office of the Collector nor the officers of the Air Port Authority took any action for recovery of rent from the petitioners of occupying the area in question. The impugned demand notice has been sent by the office of the Collector, M.S.D.in November,2011 directing the society to pay an amount of Rs.1,73,04,789/- within 15 days towards the outstanding rent of 38 stalls. The Air Port Authority has also issued similar notice regarding the area which belongs to them. The Air Port Authority has sent demand notice dated 13/10/2011 demanding Rs.48,72,843/- towards the outstanding rent of 42 stalls. It is interesting to note that such demand notices have been issued after more than five years since the hawkers of the petitioner society are doing their business. It is unfortunate that neither the office of the Collector nor the Air Port Authority took any action for recovery of the amount for such a long period. The way in which both the departments conducted their affairs reflects sorry state of affairs as the way in which the public revenue has been dealt with by both these authorities exhibits callous attitude. 2 Learned counsel appearing for both the departments are not in a position to point out the inactions for such a long time for Wp2402.11 3 recovering the dues. 3 The affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the Nayab Tahasildar,office of Collector, MSD,Mumbai today wherein it is stated that the notices were issued from time to time for such payments. The starting point of such notices is 30th January,2010, meaning thereby till 2010 no action was taken. Even notice dated 30th January,2010 clearly states that as per the office order dated 15/7/2006 the petitioners are directed to pay the amount of Rs.22,32,876 for the area in question which is yearly rent determined for the entire period i.e. 2006 to 2010 total Rs.89,31,504/-. It is interesting to note that on the basis of office order of July,2006 for the first time in January,2010 the Collector issued notice to the petitioner society. The way in which the Collector has acted in this behalf reflects sorry state of affairs as the revenue authority is also functioning to collect the revenue and by inaction on the part of the Collector the ultimate sufferer is the state exchequer. Learned A.G.P., however, learned AGP could not explain anything about the delay. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that earlier the petitioners agreed to pay 50% and to make representation. However, as per the affidavit filed today by the Nayab Tahasildar, the amount was already determined and it was made known to the Wp2402.11 4 petitioners as per the various documents annexed with the reply. It is not a case in which any concession is required regarding payment by way of installments. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be permitted to make representation after making necessary payment to the Collector as well as to the Air Port Authority for reduction in the rent. It is submitted that after the amount is paid the authority may be directed to execute necessary documents which are necessary to be executed in this behalf. In view of the said submissions it is directed that after making necessary payment as per the notice by the petitioners, the appropriate authorities may execute necessary documents. Subsequently if any representation is made for reduction in the rent, the authorities may take decision as deemed fit and in accordance with law. In case, if the amount of rent is reduced after payment of the dues by the petitioners and if any amount is required to be adjusted, it can be adjusted in future rent. However, it is for the concerned authority to reduce or increase the rent .Such decision is required to be taken by the concerned authorities and we express no opinion on this point. 4 Since both the authorities have remained inactive for many years, the petitioners are given two months time to pay the entire Wp2402.11 5 amount and only after making such payment the petitioners are permitted to make representation as aforesaid. In case if the aforesaid amount is not paid within two months, the concerned authority may take steps to remove the petitioners-hawkers from the respective places which they are occupying. 5 Accordingly the petitioners are directed to make payment as per the notice within two months from today and after such payment the respective authorities are directed to execute the necessary documents, if required. 6 Before parting with this order, we are of the opinion that the way in which the Collector as well as the office of the Air Port Authority have acted in not collecting the appropriate lease amount from the petitioners, their conduct is required to be brought to the notice of the concerned authorities. Copy of this order,therefore, may be sent to the Secretary, Revenue Department as well as to the Regional Executive Director/ Chairman, Air Port Authority of India- respondent no.5 to look into the conduct of the concerned officer who allowed the members of the petitioner-society to conduct their business without paying a single pai for five years and without taking strict action Wp2402.11 6 in this behalf. Subject to what is stated above, the petition is disposed of. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (P.B. MAJMUDAR,J)