IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 914 WRIT PETITION NO. 10180 OF 2016 GOVIND JAGANNATH GAIKWAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8365 OF 2018 ANANDA RAGHUNATH BAGUL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1866 OF 2016 ANANDA RAGHUNATH BAGUL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS... Mr. Arun S. Shejwal, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for the Respondent/State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 26th SEPTEMBER, 2025 P.C. :- 1. By consent of both sides, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner which upheld the decision of the Additional Collector/District Supply Officer, Dist. Aurangabad imposing a monetary liability on the Petitioners for storage deficit found in the maize and wp10180.16.odt 1 of 8 2025:BHC-AUG:27538 millets inventory purchased during the year 2005-2006 financial year. Resulting, in the Tahsildar of Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad, the recovery of amount from the petitioners’ pensionary benefits. 3. In Writ Petition No. 10180/2016 is at the instance of Shri. Govind Jagnnath Gaikwad (deceased) legal representative Jayabai W/o Govind Jagnnath Gaikwd, who was working on the post of Awal Karkun (Godown Keeper) at Vaijapur, Aurangabad in the year 2005. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad-Respondent No.3 passed order directing the recovery of amount of from Shri. Govind Jagnnath Gaikwad. 4. In Writ Petition No. 8365/2018 and Writ Petition No. 1866/2018 Shri. Ananda Raghunath Bagul (deceased) legal representative Shashikala W/o Ananda Bagul, who was working on the post of Talathi in the year 2005 at Talathi Saja Shivoor Tq. Vaijapur Dist. Aurangabad. Meanwhile, Tahsildar, Vaijapur (Respondent No. 4) was given appointment to the Shri. Ananda Raghunath Bagul on 5/12/2005 as Godown Keeper at Pulse Grain Center at Shivoor Tq. Vaijapur Dist. Aurangabad. 5. Due to a shortage of the grain stock stored, the Tahsildar, Vaijapur Dist. Aurangbad incurred a financial loss of Rs. 1,22,475/- and wp10180.16.odt 2 of 8 Rs. 2,90,360.70 penalty came to be imposed on Ananda Raghunath Bagul and Rs. 8,18, 294/- on Govinda Jagnnath Gaikwad. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that after performing their duties under a workload, they retired on attaining age of superannuation. Petitioners sought to make out case that they made several representations to Respondent No. 4, to the effect that the government Warehouse at Vaijapur Dist. Aurangabad was structurally compromised, lacking the requisite security measures. The severe infestation of rats and mice led to the accumulation of waste and debris up to three stacks high, which directly resulted in the deterioration and likely quantifiable loss of the stored jowar and maize stock and the necessary care is not being taken for grain storage. Since the warehouse, which was used for the storage of jowar and maize, had not been inspected by any authorized official, a potential financial loss may occur in the future. 7. The petitioners had also informed Respondent No. 4 the Tahsildar under communications that 2005-2006 maize procurement agent was purchasing maize in contravention of government mandated quality standards, as it contained excessive dirt, chaff, dust and soil. Despite these repeated warnings, the Procurement agent failed to comply with the mandatory screening process. This negligence of duty wp10180.16.odt 3 of 8 according to them would forcibly result in a significant godown shortage upon final accounting. A reference is also made to the communication dated 02.02.2006 by Desk Officer of the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department states that, the agent shall be held solely responsible for any shortage, deterioration, or degradation in the quality of the grain that may arise due to the failure to adopt scientific storage practices. Furthermore, the loss shall be chargeable to the agent. Apart from this it is contended that in Weekly Procurement report of Tahsildar Vaijapur a Fair Average Quality the procurement agent is currently purchasing moisture-wet maize due to pressure from local leaders. Further, the report also said that the procurement agent will be held fully accountable and responsible for the discrepancy reported. It is further case of Petitioners that before imposing financial liability on them, no inquiry was conducted nor opportunity of hearing was allowed to them. On these amongst other grounds orders impugned are sought to be challenged. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that, there is ample evidence to show that warehouse at Vaijapur, suffered nuisance caused by rats and rodents and there developed piles of debris up to three stacks high, which resulted in the damage and subsequent loss of the stored jowar and maize. According to him, the petitioners had intimated to respondent no. 4 several times the same, about inferior wp10180.16.odt 4 of 8 quality of maize contained mesquite, rubbish, soil and dust were purchased by the society, and petitioner has also informed the society that to purchase maize as per the government norms due to which deficit in maize, low weight of the bag would be occurred in future and for that the society would be responsible for quality and quantity deficiency of maize. It is further argued that as per letters dated 02/02/2006 and 13/02/2006, the agent of the society was responsible for preserving the food grain in a proper manner using the scientific method. However, the foodgrains were damaged due to pests, rainwater, and the poor condition of the godowns. He specifically argued about no inquiry being conducted against the Petitioners before fixing monetary penalty on them. According to him the authority has failed to take into accounts the facts appearing on record from admitted correspondence. He therefore seeks interference in the orders impugned. 9. Learned AGP supported the impugned orders. It is his contention that deficit in the maize stock at the Vaijapur Government Godown, District Aurangabad, stands effectively admitted by the Petitioners. Furthermore, the Petitioners confirmed the contents of the Tahsildar’s Report, due to pressing time constraints and a lack of available or appropriate storage facilities, the coarse grains were placed in the subject warehouse in their existing condition, leaving all prior wp10180.16.odt 5 of 8 deficiencies unaddressed. It is submitted that being godown in charge only Petitioners could be held responsible for the deficit of grains. 10. Perusal of the record indicates that there is ample correspondence on record to indicate that time and again, it was brought to the notice of authorities about the quality of grains purchased so also the condition of storage place. The communications including one made by Tahasildar also abundantly shows that there were flaws in the purchase of the grains in respect of quality so also the godowns were procured in order to store the grain purchased under the direction of government. Thus more is reason to believe that deficit in grains would have been caused for these reasons. 11. There can not be dispute made with regard to the fact the godown keeper or in charge of warehouse would be responsible to protect the grain stored therein, so also would be accountable for the same. However, at the same time there must be evidence to implicate such person for the charges of misappropriation. Only for the reason that there occurred deficit in the stock, would not lead to conclusion that this is a case of misappropriation. This observation becomes inevitable in view of the material communication on record. The said communication which is prior in time cannot be ignored while deciding the Petitions. wp10180.16.odt 6 of 8 12. The material on record demonstrate that incharge of godown/ warehouse cannot be blamed entirely for the loss of jowar and maize. There is reason to believe that the damage was caused by rats, pests, and a dirty, unfit warehouse. In spite of these issues having brought to the notice of authorities there was failure on their part to take remedial action. Crucially, the Tahsildar’s Report on records proves the case sought to be made out by the Petitioners. It admits that because of time problems and a lack of proper storage, the government authorities knowingly used the damaged warehouse anyway without fixing any problems. 13. In the light of these facts there ought to have been positive evidence led to show that the loss/deficit could be attributed to the Petitioners. This Court made specific query to learned AGP to make statement on instructions as to whether any inquiry was conducted against the Petitioners before holding them guilty for the deficit stock/loss. It is informed to this Court that no inquiry was conducted against the Petitioners. Thus, this is the case wherein principles of natural justice were flouted and any order passed contravening basic rule of audi alteram partem, cannot sustain. 14. Against order of Deputy Collector, Appeal cause to be preferred before Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. This appeal wp10180.16.odt 7 of 8 came to be rejected only for the reason that Petitioners were incharge of godown. The observations made by this authority about advisor of Petitioners is misplaced. What was claimed by Petitions that deficit of grain has resulted due to the rats and the inferior quality of grain purchase. So also poor condition of godown. The Appellants Authority has failed to take into consideration the grievance made by Petitioners from time to time about substandard purchaser of grains and poor condition of warehouse. The order passed by Appellate Authority therefore cannot sustain. 15. As a result of above discussion, Petitions must succeed. Consequently, impugned orders are set aside. The Petitioners/ LR’s of Petitioners would be entitled to receive all monetary benefits inconsequence of setting aside of impugned orders. If amounts are already recovered, be returned to the Petitioners/LR’s of Petitioners. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp wp10180.16.odt 8 of 8