1-OSWP-833-2008.DOC Akash Tayde IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 833 OF 2008 Bhavesh Goradia …Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Amey Patil a/w Mr. J.B.Vyas, Mr. Manav Kantawala, Ms. Harsha Masand i/b Mr. Vivek Kantawala & Co., for the Petitioner. Mr. Akshay Patkar, AGP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. A.B. Ketkar a/w Ms.Meghna Vijan & Kardina Mathew i/b Sagar Shetty, for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6. CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ. DATED: 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026. PC:- 1. Mr. A.B. Ketkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6, seeks liberty to file a compilation of documents including the judgments sought to be relied upon in this case. However, the same is opposed by Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who wants to go on with the matter today itself. In view of the above, we proceed to hear this matter. 1-OSWP-833-2008.DOC 2. Heard Mr. Amey Patil, Mr. Akshay Patkar, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent-State and Mr. A.B. Ketkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6. 3. Assailing the final Order of assessment dated 24th January 2008 (Exh.‘O’), the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. This is the second round of litigation. 4. The facts and circumstances of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, giving rise to the filing of the petition are that, on 28th September 2007, inspection (Raid) was carried out at the premises of the Petitioner. Thereafter, Provisional Assessment Order and Demand Notice, for a claim for Rs.17,66,319/- (which included vigilance claim of Rs.15,61,659/- & compounding charges of Rs.2,04,660/-) was seized on account of theft of electricity on the Petitioner. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 also threatened to disconnect the electricity supply to the Petitioner’s premises. As such, the Petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- under protest, which was informed to Respondent No.2 by letter dated 28th September 2007. Page 2 of 8 1-OSWP-833-2008.DOC 5. Thereafter, several correspondences had been exchanged between the parties. However, the issue could not be resolved. Eventually, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2578 of 2007 before this Court inter-alia contending that no opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner before issuing the Provisional Assessment Order. During the course of the proceeding, the Petitioner had deposited an additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the authorities, thus depositing an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- in total. By order dated 12th December 2007, Writ Petition No.2578 of 2007 was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by granting liberty to the authorities to proceed with the assessment proceedings and to conclude the same within four weeks. Until then, no precipitative steps were to be taken by the Respondents. 6. In terms of the leave granted by the order dated 12th December 2007, the Respondents have passed the final order of assessment dated 24th January 2008, which reads as under :- “Dear Sir, During the surprise inspection of your above installation by Vigilance(ES) Dept., on 28.09.2007, a total vigilance claim of Rs.17,66,319/- (vigilance claim of Rs.15,61,659/- and compounding charges of Rs.2,05,660/-) was preferred to you. You have made payment of Rs.7,00,000/-. Page 3 of 8 1-OSWP-833-2008.DOC As per your contention & representation to GM, dated 04.10.2007 & 11.10.2007 and representation dated 23.01.2008, your claim is revised to Rs.7,48,288/- with the compounding of Rs.2,05,660/-. The same is duly approved by our Management. As you have already made payment of Rs.7,00,000/- against the claim amount, you are hereby requested to make the balance payment of vigilance claim of Rs.48,288/- and Compounding charges of Rs.2,04,660/- on receipt of this letter at BEST Bhavan, Review Committee (Vigilance), Regulatory Cell Office, Ground floor, Multistoryed Annexe building, BEST Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400 001, so as to enable us to close the case. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, (M.B. Urunkar) Deputy Chief Engineer (REVIDW)” 7. It is not in dispute that although, the original claim made by Respondent Nos.2 to 6 was for an amount of Rs.17,66,319/-, yet, the amount was subsequently reduced to Rs.7,48,288/- (plus compounding charges of Rs.2,04,660/-). However, the Petitioner had already deposited an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- before the authorities. Therefore, the impugned order has been assailed by the Petitioner primarily contending that the same does not disclose any reasons or basis for arriving at the figure of Rs.7,48,288/- but the impugned figure has been arbitrarily arrived at only to 1-OSWP-833-2008.DOC appropriate the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- already deposited by the Petitioner. 8. Mr. Amey Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, by referring to the material on record, submits that the impugned order is not only violative of the legal rights of the Petitioner, but the same also violates the principles of natural justice, thus rendering the impugned order unsustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that the impugned order is vitiated by total arbitrariness and non application of mind and hence, the same the same is liable to be set aside on such count alone. He further submits that the impugned order is also contrary to the letter and spirit of the order dated 12th December 2007 passed by this Court. 9. Responding to the above, Mr.A.B. Ketkar, submits that the Petitioner has voluntarily deposited the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and the criminal liability has also been compounded accordingly, by leveling compounding charges of Rs.2,04,660/-. He submits that there is no scope for this Court to reopen the matter by setting aside the impugned order in as much as a criminal proceeding which stood extinguished under the final order of assessment cannot now be revived by an order passed in a Civil Writ Petition. Page 5 of 8 1-OSWP-833-2008.DOC By citing the decision of the High Court of Judicature of Madras in the case of M/s. Enflying Flowers vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer (O & M) (WP No.30662/2014). Mr.Ketkar, has argued that the relief prayed by the Petitioner cannot be granted since the offence committed by him has already been compounded by putting process of criminal prosecution to a halt. 10. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through material on record. From a perusal of the material on record we find that the impugned order dated 24th January 2008 does not contain any reasons nor does it furnish any basis for arriving at the amount of Rs.7,48,288/- as the vigilance claim. What gains significance in this case is the fact that the original claim was for an amount of Rs.17,66,319/- and the said amount was subsequently brought down drastically to Rs.7,48,288/-, which according to the Petitioner, was done with the sole objective of coinciding the said amount with the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- already deposited by the Petitioner so as to put an end to the controversy. This according to the Petitioner is impermissible in the eyes of law. Page 6 of 8 1-OSWP-833-2008.DOC 11. Since the amount demanded by the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 is in the nature of penal recovery, having adverse civil consequence on the Petitioner, the Respondents would be duty bound to support the demand with adequate reasons, which is not done in the present case. 12. In our view, the fact that the criminal proceedings has been compounded cannot be the sole justification to sustain an unreasoned order, which on the face of it, appears to be arbitrary and illegal. In any case, the Petitioner is assailing the quantification of only the vigilance sum in the impugned order and no further. 13. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 24th January 2008 is hereby set aside. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are, however, granted liberty to pass a fresh order by furnishing proper reasons, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner if the same is desired by him. 14. The aforesaid process be completed as expeditiously as possible but not later than 3 months from the date of uploading of this judgment. We make it clear that in view of the directions issued herein above, no refund order is being issued by this Court 1-OSWP-833-2008.DOC for the present. The quantum of refund, if any, shall be subject to the fresh final Assessment Order that may be passed by the authorities in terms of the order of this Court. 15. With the above the observations the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 16. No order as to cost. (GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.) {