High Court
Legal Reasoning
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD914 WRIT PETITION NO. 10180 OF 2016GOVIND JAGANNATH GAIKWADVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 8365 OF 2018ANANDA RAGHUNATH BAGULVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1866 OF 2016ANANDA RAGHUNATH BAGULVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS...Mr. Arun S. Shejwal, Advocate for the PetitionerMr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for the Respondent/StateCORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.DATE: 26th SEPTEMBER, 2025P.C. :-1.By consent of both sides, heard finally at the stage ofadmission. 2.The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by theDivisional Commissioner which upheld the decision of the AdditionalCollector/District Supply Officer, Dist. Aurangabad imposing a monetaryliability on the Petitioners for storage deficit found in the maize andwp10180.16.odt1 of 8
Legal Reasoning
millets inventory purchased during the year 2005-2006 financial year.Resulting, in the Tahsildar of Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad, therecovery 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/oGovind Jagnnath Gaikwd, who was working on the post of Awal Karkun(Godown Keeper) at Vaijapur, Aurangabad in the year 2005. TheAdditional Collector, Aurangabad-Respondent No.3 passed orderdirecting the recovery of amount of from Shri. Govind JagnnathGaikwad.4.In Writ Petition No. 8365/2018 and Writ Petition No.1866/2018 Shri. Ananda Raghunath Bagul (deceased) legalrepresentative Shashikala W/o Ananda Bagul, who was working on thepost of Talathi in the year 2005 at Talathi Saja Shivoor Tq. Vaijapur Dist.Aurangabad. Meanwhile, Tahsildar, Vaijapur (Respondent No. 4) wasgiven appointment to the Shri. Ananda Raghunath Bagul on 5/12/2005as 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/- andwp10180.16.odt2 of 8 Rs. 2,90,360.70 penalty came to be imposed on Ananda RaghunathBagul and Rs. 8,18, 294/- on Govinda Jagnnath Gaikwad. 6.It is the case of the petitioners that after performing theirduties under a workload, they retired on attaining age ofsuperannuation. Petitioners sought to make out case that they madeseveral representations to Respondent No. 4, to the effect that thegovernment Warehouse at Vaijapur Dist. Aurangabad was structurallycompromised, lacking the requisite security measures. The severeinfestation of rats and mice led to the accumulation of waste and debrisup to three stacks high, which directly resulted in the deterioration andlikely quantifiable loss of the stored jowar and maize stock and thenecessary care is not being taken for grain storage. Since thewarehouse, which was used for the storage of jowar and maize, had notbeen inspected by any authorized official, a potential financial loss mayoccur in the future.7.The petitioners had also informed Respondent No. 4 theTahsildar under communications that 2005-2006 maize procurementagent was purchasing maize in contravention of government mandatedquality standards, as it contained excessive dirt, chaff, dust and soil.Despite these repeated warnings, the Procurement agent failed tocomply with the mandatory screening process. This negligence of dutywp10180.16.odt3 of 8 according to them would forcibly result in a significant godown shortageupon final accounting. A reference is also made to the communicationdated 02.02.2006 by Desk Officer of the Food, Civil Supplies andConsumer Protection Department states that, the agent shall be heldsolely responsible for any shortage, deterioration, or degradation in thequality of the grain that may arise due to the failure to adopt scientificstorage practices. Furthermore, the loss shall be chargeable to theagent. Apart from this it is contended that in Weekly Procurementreport of Tahsildar Vaijapur a Fair Average Quality the procurementagent is currently purchasing moisture-wet maize due to pressure fromlocal leaders. Further, the report also said that the procurement agentwill be held fully accountable and responsible for the discrepancyreported. It is further case of Petitioners that before imposing financialliability on them, no inquiry was conducted nor opportunity of hearingwas allowed to them. On these amongst other grounds orders impugnedare sought to be challenged. 8.Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that, there isample evidence to show that warehouse at Vaijapur, suffered nuisancecaused by rats and rodents and there developed piles of debris up tothree stacks high, which resulted in the damage and subsequent loss ofthe stored jowar and maize. According to him, the petitioners hadintimated to respondent no. 4 several times the same, about inferiorwp10180.16.odt4 of 8 quality of maize contained mesquite, rubbish, soil and dust werepurchased by the society, and petitioner has also informed the societythat to purchase maize as per the government norms due to whichdeficit in maize, low weight of the bag would be occurred in future andfor that the society would be responsible for quality and quantitydeficiency of maize. It is further argued that as per letters dated02/02/2006 and 13/02/2006, the agent of the society was responsiblefor preserving the food grain in a proper manner using the scientificmethod. However, the foodgrains were damaged due to pests,rainwater, and the poor condition of the godowns. He specifically arguedabout no inquiry being conducted against the Petitioners before fixingmonetary penalty on them. According to him the authority has failed totake into accounts the facts appearing on record from admittedcorrespondence. He therefore seeks interference in the ordersimpugned. 9.Learned AGP supported the impugned orders. It is hiscontention that deficit in the maize stock at the Vaijapur GovernmentGodown, District Aurangabad, stands effectively admitted by thePetitioners. Furthermore, the Petitioners confirmed the contents of theTahsildar’s Report, due to pressing time constraints and a lack ofavailable or appropriate storage facilities, the coarse grains were placedin the subject warehouse in their existing condition, leaving all priorwp10180.16.odt5 of 8 deficiencies unaddressed. It is submitted that being godown in chargeonly Petitioners could be held responsible for the deficit of grains. 10.Perusal of the record indicates that there is amplecorrespondence on record to indicate that time and again, it wasbrought to the notice of authorities about the quality of grainspurchased so also the condition of storage place. The communicationsincluding one made by Tahasildar also abundantly shows that therewere flaws in the purchase of the grains in respect of quality so also thegodowns were procured in order to store the grain purchased under thedirection of government. Thus more is reason to believe that deficit ingrains would have been caused for these reasons.11.There can not be dispute made with regard to the fact thegodown keeper or in charge of warehouse would be responsible toprotect the grain stored therein, so also would be accountable for thesame. However, at the same time there must be evidence to implicatesuch person for the charges of misappropriation. Only for the reasonthat there occurred deficit in the stock, would not lead to conclusionthat this is a case of misappropriation. This observation becomesinevitable in view of the material communication on record. The saidcommunication which is prior in time cannot be ignored while decidingthe Petitions.wp10180.16.odt6 of 8 12.The material on record demonstrate that incharge ofgodown/ warehouse cannot be blamed entirely for the loss of jowar andmaize. There is reason to believe that the damage was caused by rats,pests, and a dirty, unfit warehouse. In spite of these issues havingbrought to the notice of authorities there was failure on their part totake remedial action. Crucially, the Tahsildar’s Report on records provesthe case sought to be made out by the Petitioners. It admits thatbecause of time problems and a lack of proper storage, the governmentauthorities knowingly used the damaged warehouse anyway withoutfixing any problems.13.In the light of these facts there ought to have been positiveevidence led to show that the loss/deficit could be attributed to thePetitioners. This Court made specific query to learned AGP to makestatement on instructions as to whether any inquiry was conductedagainst the Petitioners before holding them guilty for the deficitstock/loss. It is informed to this Court that no inquiry was conductedagainst the Petitioners. Thus, this is the case wherein principles ofnatural justice were flouted and any order passed contravening basicrule of audi alteram partem, cannot sustain.14.Against order of Deputy Collector, Appeal cause to bepreferred before Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. This appealwp10180.16.odt7 of 8 came to be rejected only for the reason that Petitioners were inchargeof godown. The observations made by this authority about advisor ofPetitioners is misplaced. What was claimed by Petitions that deficit ofgrain has resulted due to the rats and the inferior quality of grainpurchase. So also poor condition of godown. The Appellants Authorityhas failed to take into consideration the grievance made by Petitionersfrom time to time about substandard purchaser of grains and poorcondition of warehouse. The order passed by Appellate Authoritytherefore cannot sustain. 15.As a result of above discussion, Petitions must succeed.Consequently, impugned orders are set aside. The Petitioners/ LR’s ofPetitioners would be entitled to receive all monetary benefitsinconsequence of setting aside of impugned orders. If amounts arealready recovered, be returned to the Petitioners/LR’s of Petitioners. (R. M. JOSHI, J.)sspwp10180.16.odt8 of 8