1 wp2658.20.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2658 OF 2020 Shri Rudreshwar S/o Ramchandra Thombre, Aged about 37 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o Shaktinagar, Khat Road, Bhandara, Tah. and Dist. Bhandara ...PETITIONER ...V E R S U S... 1. Sub Divisional Officer, Umarkhed, Tah. Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal. 2. Tahsildar, Umarkhed, Tah. Umarkhed, District Yavatmal. 3. Naib Tahsildar, Tehsil Office Umarkhed, Tah. Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal. ...RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri P.S. Chawhan, Advocate for petitioner. Shri H.D. Dubey, AGP for respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATED :- 30.09.2025 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The Tahsildar, by order dated 13.02.2020 imposed penalty of 1,33,000/- on illegal transportation of minor mineral ₹ (sand) i.e. without a valid royalty pass and 5,00,000/- as a ₹ 2025:BHC-NAG:10236 2 wp2658.20.odt penalty for using the truck bearing registration No.MH40BG5326. Appeal came to be preferred before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Umarkhed, which also came to be dismissed. Though, there are various grounds are raised in this petition attacking the order passed by the Tahsildar and confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the main contention raised by the petitioner is that the Sub-Divisional Officer without giving any reason, upheld the order of the Tahsildar. 3. With the able assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, I have gone through the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 03.07.2020. Perusal of the order would reveal that the Sub- Divisional Officer reproduced the grounds of the appeal filed by the petitioner and in last two lines, has observed as under: “izdj.kkr vfiykFkhZ ;kapk vihy vtZ] nk[ky dkxni_ks] vfiykFkhZ ;kaps odhykapk rksaMh ;qDrhokn ;kaps voyksdu dsys vlrk] rgflynkj mej[ksM ;kapk vkns'k ;ksX; fnlqu ;srks-” 4. Thus, it appears that the Sub-Divisional Officer without giving any reason, dismissed the appeal by observing that the order of the Tahsildar is a correct one. 3 wp2658.20.odt 5. Needless to mention that an order passed without reason is non est. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer in Case No.RA.A.Kra/12/MNL-37/2019-20 Mouza Umarkhed, Tah. Umarkhed is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Umarkhed for deciding the appeal of the petitioner afresh. The Sub-Divisional Officer shall decide the appeal as early as possible, in any case within two months. Rule made absolute in above terms. JUDGE Wagh