1 W.P.No.1435/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1435 OF 2010. Ashok Ramrao Gavare Patil ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.B.Gaikwad, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Toke, advocate for the Respondent No.2. Mr.Rajendra Deshmukh, advocate for the Respondent No.3. ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 24.01.2011. PER COURT 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice issued dated 24.11.2008, by the Block 2 W.P.No.1435/10 Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Ambad. The petitioner is even aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 14.1.2010. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.4408/2009 and Writ Petition No. 2185/2009. Both these petitions were disposed of. We have perused the order passed in these petitions. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of proceedings of Writ Petition NO. 1435/2010, submits that the Block Development Officer has no authority to pass order. The Tahsildar was competent to pass order. The petitioner's claim is still pending. The petitioner's well was requisitioned for supply of water and the petitioner was entitled to receive amount as per the Government order. The learned counsel admits that the State authorities did not execute any agreement with the petitioner but under the instructions and orders passed by the authority, the petitioner's well was requisitioned. 3 W.P.No.1435/10 3. In respect of Writ Petition No. 8144/2010, learned counsel submits that charge has been created on the property of the petitioner in respect of alleged recovery of Rs. 3,36,400/-. An appropriate procedure in respect of creation of charge was not followed. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the proceedings be quashed and set aside. 4. We have perused affidavit-in-reply filed by the State. Consequent to the order passed by this Court (Coram : A.M.khanwilkar and S.S.Shinde,JJ.) on 24.2.2010 in Writ Petition No. 1435/2010, the State submits that steps to initiate disciplinary action has been proposed against both the Officers of the concerned Department. The proposal is submitted to the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, has forwarded his proposal on 13.4.2010 to the Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 5. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader 4 W.P.No.1435/10 submits that the inquiry has already started. We expect that the inquiry would be completed soon. 6. In respect of the merits of the case, we find that the petitioner disputes the method in which the amount due to the petitioner according to him, has been calculated by the authorities. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner ought to have been paid more amount instead recovery of amount of Rs. 3,61,400/- has been initiated. Issues in respect of competency of Block Development Officer to pass order has also been raised. 7. We have seen from the record that consequent to the order passed in Writ Petition No.2185/2009 on 5.11.2009, the Sub-Divisional Officer has passed order. The notices have been issued by the Block Development Officer by giving reference to the instructions given by the Collector,Jalna. 8. In light of the facts of the case and the reply, we do not find that in our extra 5 W.P.No.1435/10 ordinary writ jurisdiction, the petitioner has made out a case for causing interference. The Writ Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is entitled to resort to alternate remedy as permissible in law. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (NARESH H.PATIL,J.) asp/office/wp1435.10