1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4608/2009 (Jaikumar Jaiswal VERSUS State of Maharashtra & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms. T.H. Udeshi, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. S.S. Wandile, A.G.P. for the R-State. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 16, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the orders passed by the Collector, Akola on 20.03.2007 and the Minister for State Excise are just and proper and call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction as the petitioner was liable to pay the license fees by considering the population of Shivani to be 10429 and from the auditor’s report it was found that the petitioner had not deposited the license fees in accordance with the population of Shivani. It appears that though the petitioner had paid the renewal fees for the period from 2002-03 to 2005-06, the same were not paid on the basis of the population and, hence, the Collector had rightly ordered the recovery of the amount of difference in license fees along 2 with the interest payable thereon in accordance with law. There was no error whatsoever in directing the petitioner to pay the difference in renewal fees along with interest. It is, however, submitted on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel that there was some mistake in the order passed by the Superintendent State Excise, Akola on13.11.2006 as an amount of Rs.1,88,000/- was payable towards the outstanding renewal fees and Rs.1,04,440/- was payable towards interest and the respondent nos.3 and 4 had, later on accepted the mistake in the calculation and the petitioner was asked to pay the arrears of license fees of Rs.1,66,000/- with interest of Rs.81,380/- only. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had accordingly deposited the said amount of Rs.2,47,380/- under protest on 30.03.2007. Be that as it may, in case, the respondent nos.3 and 4 have accepted the calculation mistake and have asked the petitioner to deposit only Rs.2,47,380/-, the petitioner may deposit the said amount in stead of the amount of Rs.1,88,000/- and Rs.1,04,440/- which was payable in terms of the order passed by the Superintendent of State Excise on 13.11.2006. 3 There is no jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE