1 946-wp-8898-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8898 OF 2024 H.M. Stone Metal Supplier Through Yusuf Saifudeen Saifi And Others VERSUS State Of Maharashtra Through Collector And Another ... Mr. Amol Sawant h/f Mr. U. A. Bhadgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondents-State ….. CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATED : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- . Heard learned advocate Mr. Amol Sawant h/f Mr. U. A. Bhadgaonkar, for the petitioners and Mr. R. K. Ingole, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents-authority. 2. The petitioners are running a stone crusher at the respective site under a license granted by the state authorities. On 05.02.2021, the Tahsildar, Dhule (Rural) issued a notice to the petitioners contending that the electricity consumption at the site showed consumption of 48693 units during the period from April 2020 to December 2020. 3. The Tahsildar applied formula of 18 units per brass and opined that the petitioners have excavated earth material to the extent of 2705 brass. It was further contended that the 2026:BHC-AUG:42879 2 946-wp-8898-2024 petitioners had deposited royalty in respect of 1000 brass, whereas the actual excavation was to the extent of 2705 brass. The Tahsildar therefore called upon the petitioners to pay additional royalty in respect of 1705 brass within the stipulated period, or to face consequences. 4. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner instituted Regular Civil Suit no.43 of 2021 in the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Dhule seeking declaration that the notice dated 05.02.2021 be declared as illegal. A further prayer is also made in the suit seeking an injunction restraining the respondent/authorities from taking any action pursuant to the notice dated 05.02.2021. The State Authorities appeared and filed their written statement. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues, taking recourse to the order 14 of the Civil Procedure Code. The issues that were framed are as thus: 1. Whether plaintiffs prove that, the notice dated 05.02.2021 issued by defendants is illegal, ultra-vires and is liable to be set aside ? 2. Whether plaintiffs prove that, defendants have initiated illegal action against them for recovery of royalty amount ? 3 946-wp-8898-2024 3. Are plaintiffs entitled for the Declaration claim ? 4. Are plaintiffs entitled for the Perpetual Injunction claim ? 5. What Order and Decree ? 5. Mr. Amol Sawant submits that, this Court vide judgment and order dated 17.04.2017 in Writ Petition No.7036 of 2016 Principal Seat at Bombay, has clarified that the State Authorities cannot impose royalty on the basis of consumption of electricity. The Court further clarified that the royalty can be imposed and recovered only in accordance with the circulars issued by the State Government from time to time. Thus, he would submit that in the light of the settled law, the subject matter notice needs to be quashed and set aside. 6. The Petitioner wished that the Trial Court ought to have framed issue as to whether the defendant could justify the impugned notice in the light of the Judgment and Order rendered by this Court (supra). However, the plaintiff felt aggrieved by the burden cast upon the plaintiff to prove that the notice was illegal. 4 946-wp-8898-2024 7. Having apprehended that the issues framed would fall deficit to adjudicate legality of the notice dated 05.02.2021 without testing it in the light of the orders passed by this Court, an application came to be filed at Exhibit-75 by the petitioners for recasting of the issues or for framing additional issues. 8. The petitioners requested that the burden levied upon the petitioners to prove that the notice was illegal and wrong be removed, and the defendant be called upon to prove how the notice was legal one. 9. The said application came to be turned down vide the impugned order. Trial court while rejecting the application held that the burden lies on the plaintiff and that it is for the plaintiff to demonstrate as to how the notice dated 05.02.2021 is illegal. Observing this, the said application came to be rejected by the trial court on 10.06.2024. As against the said order the petitioners are before this court. 10. During the course of hearing, Mr. Amol Sawant would submit that the concern of the petitioner is that the Trial Court should apply the law laid down by this Court in the cited Writ Petition. It is apparent that the petitioners are the plaintiffs the suit and have challenged the validity and legality of notice 5 946-wp-8898-2024 dated 05.02.2021. Obviously, the first issue framed by the trial court casts the burden upon the plaintiffs to prove that the notice is illegal, ultra vires and liable to be set aside. 11. In the light of the obvious fact that the law on this point is already settled, the Trial Court is bound to decide the suit accordingly. Mr. Sawant, at this juncture urges that the Trial Court be directed to frame a preliminary issue as regards to the validity of the impugned notice in the light of the law laid down by this Court (supra). The expectation of the plaintiff as expressed by Mr. Sawant is legitimate, the only issue is about the procedure. 12. I am of the considered view that the interest of the petitioners would be served by issuing some clarificatory directions to the trial Court. Hence, the petition stands disposed of with following directions: ORDER a. The Trial Court to frame a preliminary issue as regards to validity of the impugned notice in the light of the judgment and order dated 17.04.2017 in Writ Petition No.7036 of 2016 Principal Seat at Bombay; and shall decide in accordance with Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure; 6 946-wp-8898-2024 b. If the Trial Court arrives at conclusion that the findings on the Preliminary issue hold the impugned notice in contravention with the law laid down by the judgment and order dated 17.04.2017 in Writ Petition No.7036 of 2016 Principal Seat at Bombay; the rest issues be answered accordingly. c. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) Rushikesh/2026