(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11309 OF 2010 Mukesh s/o. Subhash Khule, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Station Road, Dhule, Taluka & District : Dhule. .. Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra (Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32), and 3 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. D.B. Thoke, Advocate, holding for Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1 to 4. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. The petitioner claims to have purchased excavated sand from a licensed allottee of sand Ghat. He moved respondents seeking permission to transport it. The permission has been rejected after observing that there is no such jurisdiction or power with the authority. 2. Mr. D.B. Thoke, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has pointed out that a new policy about sand excavation has been formulated on 25-10-2010 and Clause Nos. 16 and 17, as contained in Part C thereof, confer such jurisdiction upon respondents. 3. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, states that Clauses 16 and 17 contemplate grant of license to authorized sand Ghat operator and to nobody else. 4. With the assistance of both the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, I have perused the papers. The provisions relied upon permit office of the Collector to issue necessary authorization and documents in favour of successful auction purchaser of a sand Ghat. The same stand is taken by the office (3) of Collector by filing affidavit of Tahsildar before this Court. 5. The petitioner is not in a position to point out any other provision under which a purchaser like him can be given license by the respondents to transport the sand already purchased. 6. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be faulted with. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp11309