High CourtsDivision Bench(2022) 08 BOM CK 0042

_____ vs State Govt

Bombay High Court · Decided on 22 August 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.S. Sonak, J · R.N. Laddha, J
CASE NUMBER
Public Interest Litigation (SUO MOTU) No.1 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 335 words
1.

The learned Advocate General states that the Authorities have now found that Mr. Swapnil Malik – respondent no.13 has a four wheeler vehicle Maruti Swift bearing registration no.GA-04-C-7770 and 2 two wheelers; Honda Activa bearing registration no.GA-04-N-1575 and Honda Aviator bearing registration no.GA-06-J-5411. The learned Advocate General states that both these vehicles will be forthwith attached and sold for recovery of at least a portion of the amount due from respondent no.13. This statement is accepted. The concerned Authorities are directed to act accordingly.

2.

Mr. Arun A. Khanolkar, Tahasildar, Dodamarg, District Sindhudurg, Maharashtra, is present in the Court. He states that necessary steps for attachment of respondent no.13's property bearing Survey No.88/0 of Parme village of Dodamarg Taluka, Maharashtra, will be taken within four weeks. He states that within four weeks he will also make inquiries to find out whether respondent no.13 has any other properties within the jurisdiction of the Collector of Sindhudurg and if so necessary steps would be taken to attach and sell the same.

3.

We accept the statement made by Mr. Khanolkar. We post this matter for further consideration on 26.09.2022. On the said date, the Tahasildar should file a states report.

4.

If we find that the Collector of Sindhudurg or the Tahasildars in the said district are not taking effective steps, we will consdier the further course of action to be adopted in this matter.

5.

The Authorities in the district of Sindhudurg must consider that this is a case where respondent no.13 owes the State of Goa an amount of ₹1,60,52,916/- (Rupees One Crore, Sixty Lakhs, Fifty Two Thousand, Nine Hundred and Sixteen only) and that this respondent is prima facie avoiding payment. This payment is due towards the environmental degradation for which this respondent was held responsible. Therefore, it is the duty of the Collector of Sindhudurg to ensure that expeditious steps are taken to attach this respondent's property, sell them and recover this amount in accord with law.

6.

Stand over to 26.09.2022