HC imposed Rs 50,000 cost on former collector Avinask Pathak
By Lokmat Times Desk | Updated: May 9, 2026 21:30 IST2026-05-09T21:30:03+5:302026-05-09T21:30:03+5:30
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: Even as former Beed district collector Avinash Pathak has been arrested by Beed Police in connection with ...

HC imposed Rs 50,000 cost on former collector Avinask Pathak
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar:
Even as former Beed district collector Avinash Pathak has been arrested by Beed Police in connection with an alleged multi-crore scam involving national highway land acquisition and compensation distribution, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has also pulled him up in another case from Dharashiv district and imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on him.
On August 28, 2017, the sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) at Kalamb had passed an order under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Challenging this order, the respondents had approached the additional district collector (ADC) under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. At that time, Avinash Pathak, serving as the ADC, heard the matter and set aside the SDM’s order.
This decision was challenged before the Bombay High Court through a writ petition filed by Dwarkabai Sudhakar Kothawale. During the hearing before Justice Siddheshwar Thombre, the court clarified that when an SDM exercises powers under Section 145 of the CrPC, the proper legal remedy against such an order is to file a revision application before the competent court under Section 397 of the CrPC. The court held that an ADC has no authority under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code to hear challenges against such criminal orders.
The court observed that despite lacking jurisdiction, Avinash Pathak proceeded to hear the matter and deliver a ruling, terming it an ‘overstep’ of legal authority. Consequently, the court quashed his order and directed him to pay costs of Rs 50,000 for dereliction of duty.
The High Court further ordered that the amount must be paid personally by Pathak, from his own pocket, within four weeks, and deposited at the Government Cancer Hospital in the city.
Advocate Vikram Undre appeared for the petitioner, while Adv B. A. Shinde represented the State Government.
Open in app