( 1 ) wp2626.17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 30 WRIT PETITION NO. 2626 OF 2017 SHAIKH ISARUDDIN SHAIKH MUKTARUDDIN VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Mr. S.A. Ambad, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. S.S. Joshi, AGP for the respondent-State. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. S.V. Adwant, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : 27.08.2026 PC :- 01. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions to the respondent – Reserve Bank of India [for short “RBI”] to accept 200 demonetised currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination from the petitioner, total amounting to Rs.1 lakh and to pay him the amount in fresh currency. There is also prayer for grant of interest on the said amount. 02. The facts are that the petitioner happens to be a contractor. He was travelling in a vehicle bearing registration No. MH-44-G-1855 and was coming towards Kalamnuri. He was carrying the above amount, which was to be paid to the labourers/workers. It was election time and therefore his vehicle was intercepted by the Special Surveillance Team. 2026:BHC-AUG:39579-DB ( 2 ) wp2626.17 An amount of Rs.1,54,000/- was found in possession of the petitioner. Out of the said amount, amount of Rs.1 lakh was in the nature of notes of Rs.500/-. Said amount was seized from the petitioner on 18.11.2016. After investigation etc. on 27.12.2016, the Election Commissioner issued notification and directed all the District Collectors to return the amount seized during the said period. It is thus on 30.12.2016, the currency was again handed over to the petitioner. However, by that time, the Government had demonetized currency notes of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/- w.e.f. 08.11.2016 and the notes were to be in circulation only till 31.12.2016. The petitioner, therefore, could not get the amount immediately exchanged. The amount in old currency notes is thus lying with the petitioner in view of the demonetization. The petitioner is not in a position to get the amount back. When request was made to the RBI, it was informed by communication dated 31.03.2017 that old currency notes will not be accepted by the Government. The petitioner in view of this, has approached this Court. 03. Learned Advocate for the respondent – RBI opposes this petition. He submits that now the notes cannot be exchanged as the notes have already been demonetized. Learned AGP and learned Advocates for other respondents also prayed for passing appropriate ( 3 ) wp2626.17 order. 04. This Court in the order dated 06.07.2026 in Writ Petition No. 12553 of 2019 has held that when it is beyond the control of a person to get the notes exchanged within a stipulated period. He cannot be penalized for such situation. This Court in that case had directed the petitioner to tender notes with the RBI. The RBI was directed to verify the notes and return cash in fresh currency to such person. 05. This Court finds that in the present case also the petitioner cannot be penalized for the events that took place. It was under the direction of the Election Commissioner, the notes were taken in the possession of the Authority and thereafter they were returned to the petitioner after demonetization. For all these reasons this Court finds that this petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, following order :- ORDER (i) This Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). (ii) The exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. ( 4 ) wp2626.17 06. Learned Advocate Mr. Adwant submits that this exercise can be done by the RBI, Nagpur Office. 07. The petitioner to approach respondent/RBI at Nagpur within a period of four weeks from today for exchange of the notes and comply with the formalities as required under law. 08. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off. [JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2026/Aug26/wp2626.17