A division bench of Justice A V Sawant and Justice R J Kochar fined the collector in a petition filed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sidheshwar Bazar, Peth, Solapur, that had challenged three orders of the collector, whereby show cause notices were issued to the committee by the collector.

According to the petitioners, instead of requisitioning vehicles (whereby the vehicle owners are compensated for the use by the State government), the collector had ordered the committee, which is a statutory body, to deposit two vehicles with him, for election duty by an order dated July 13, 1999. He then further directed the committee to send their drivers for the vehicles.

Since it was not the duty of the drivers to drive these vehicles, the drivers returned after a few days.On July 29, 1999, the collector then issued show cause notices to the two drivers asking why action should not be taken against them for refusing to comply with his orders. The collector's letter was answered by the committee through a letter written on its own letterhead. The collector, through another notice issued on August 6, 1999 held that the committee had ``misused its letterhead''.

In the court of Justice Sawant and Justice Kochar, State Advocate General C J Sawant agreed with the counsel for the petitioners, Girish Godbole that the collector had gone beyond his brief and withdrew the three orders. However, a jeep MH 13/A698 was found to have been requisitioned in accordance with the provisions of section 160 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, and hence was allowed to be kept.

The bench, however, took exception to the notice issued by the collector on ``the misuse of the letterhead''. ``We fail to understand how it could be a misuse of a letterhead'' said the bench in its order, andfound the action of the collector, ``arbitrary, taking advantage of the EC order''. Since the bench held that the entire petition had been filed due to the orders of the collector, it directed that the collector pay a fine of Rs 500, from its own pocket to the petitioner as costs.