1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.512 of 2010 Mr.Suresh Kushalkar, Chairman Saibaba Co-operatrive Labour Society ... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mr.Anil L. Desai for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP for respondent nos.1a to 1g CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 21st June 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 16th October 2009 passed by the State Government rejecting the petitioner’s appeal/representation against the order of the Addl. Collector, Bombay imposing the penalty of Rs.3,18,336/- for unauthorised excavation of minor mineral. 3. The petitioner was granted a license for excavation of the minor mineral to the extent specified in the license. In addition to excavatin 2 permitted under the licence the petitioner carried out additional excavation for which the penalty has been imposed by the Additional Collector. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Additional Collector has overlooked the Government’s own G.R, which requires a measurement to be carried out to determine the excavation before the penalty is imposed. Perusal of the impugned order shows that in the year 1989, the Circle Officer had inspected the premises and carried out the measurement and had held that there was unauthorized excavation of 7400 brass. The contention that the measurement was not carried out is therefore required to be rejected. 5. Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that there was unauthorized excavation in the neighboring land by another licensee too. However, lesser penalty has been imposed on the neighbour and the impugned order is discriminatory. The order passed in respect of the neighboring society shows that the sub-divisional officer has given reasons for imposing lesser penalty. It is not for this Court to consider whether the reasons are adequate and the sub-divisional Officer should have imposed equal penalty on the neighboring unauthorized excavator also. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed in case of its neighbour, petitioner could have taken appropriate steps in that matter. 5. It was lastly contended the petitioner had kept proper record of the transportation and that showed no extra excavation. In my view, non reference to the records relating to the mineral transported would not vitiate the order. Petitioner could have manipulated his own 3 records and shown that lesser quantities were transported. The actual measurement of the pits where the excavation has been carried out is far more relavant than the entries of the minerals transported. In my view, therefore, State Government has not committed any error in relying upon the actual measurement. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)