Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ 2020 INSC 183 Petition No.8708 of 2017 thereby, declining to entertain the petition since the petition involves question of facts.

4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under: The respondent – District Collector, Satara had issued a notice of public auction for auctioning the sand blocks of Krishna river in the year 2012. The appellant had submitted his bid for excavation of sand insofar as Gat No.956A, Plot No.2 at village Rethare Khurd, Taluka Karad. The agreed quantity of excavation was 8500 brass. The appellant’s bid being the highest i.e. Rs.59,75,000/­, he was awarded the tender. On 3.1.2012, the appellant deposited Rs.15,00,000/­ as one­fourth (1/4th ) amount of auction with Government treasury. On 16.1.2012, the appellant deposited remaining auction amount of Rs.44,83,500/­. The appellant also deposited Rs.1,19,500/­ towards environmental cost and Rs.1,23,085/­ towards income tax. As such, the total deposit made by the appellant was Rs.62,26,085/­ towards allotment of sand block. However, since the said sand block was at a distance of about 100 ft. from the school, the villagers of Rethare Khurd village had opposed the excavation of sand. As such, though the appellant had deposited the entire amount, he was not put in possession of the said sand block. In the circumstances, the appellant made a representation to the Revenue Minister, Government of Maharashtra for refund of the auction amount. As the appellant’s representation was sent to the Collector, Satara to make enquiry, the Collector, Satara (respondent No.2 herein), in turn, by letter dated 11.6.2012 sought a report from the Tehsildar, Karad. On 15.6.2012, statement of the appellant came to be recorded by the Circle Officer, Kale (respondent No.5 herein). He also prepared a Panchnama of the sand block in question which exhibited that possession of sand block was never given to the appellant and that there was no excavation of sand from the said sand block. The Tehsildar, Karad ­ respondent No.4, submitted a detailed report dated 9.8.2012 to the Collector, Satara pointing out the factual position. The Sub­Divisional Officer, Karad – respondent No.3, in turn, submitted a report on 4.9.2012 reiterating the factual position. It appears, that in the transit the file was lost and as such, though the appellant was not granted possession of the sand block and though yet he had not excavated any sand, the refund of the amount could not be made to him. It appears that there were further correspondences between the authorities and finally, the Desk Officer of the respondent No.1 – State Government vide order dated 25.3.2014 rejected the prayer of the appellant seeking refund of the auction amount. The appellant again made several representations. Since there was no response, the appellant approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 8708 of 2017. As stated earlier, by the impugned order, the High Court refused to entertain the petition on the ground that it involves question of facts.

5. No doubt that, normally, when a petition involves disputed questions of fact and law, the High Court would be slow in entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is a rule of self­restraint and not a hard and fast rule. In any case, this Court in ABL International Ltd. & Anr. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. & Ors.[1] has observed thus:

While summing up the conclusions in the aforesaid case, this Court concluded thus:

6. It could thus be seen, that even if there are disputed questions of fact which fall for consideration but if they do not require elaborate evidence to be adduced, the High Court is not precluded from entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, such a plenary power has to be exercised by the High Court in exceptional circumstances. The High Court would be justified in exercising such a power to the exclusion of other available remedies only when it finds that the action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable and, as such, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In any case, in the present case, we find that there are hardly any disputed questions of facts.

7. It is undisputed, that the appellant was the highest bidder for the sand block in question. The appellant has deposited an amount of Rs.62,26,085/­. The Panchnama prepared by the Circle Officer, Kale ­ respondent No.5, clearly exhibited that neither possession of the sand block in question was given to the appellant nor excavation of sand was done from the said sand block. The said position is reiterated by the Tehsildar, Karad – respondent No.4 in his report submitted to the Collector ­ respondent No.2 dated 9.8.2012. The Sub­Divisional Officer, Karad – respondent No.3 in his report dated 4.9.2012, addressed to the Collector, Satara also confirmed the said position. A perusal of the letter dated 3.10.2012, addressed by the Collector, Satara to the Tehsildar and Sub­Divisional Officer also does not dispute the said position. However, he directed his subordinates to submit original file of the appellant’s sand block with his office for refund of the amount deposited by the appellant.