1 wp3863 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3863 OF 2010 Purushottam Vithoba Khot. ... .... Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... .... Respondents. Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar i/by Mr. Amogh K. Karandikar for the Petitioner. Mr. Samir Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. P. C.: We have heard Mr. Khandeparkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who was a successful bidder for excavation of sand in Gut No.2/6 of Village Kalawal. The Collector, Sindhudurg, by his order dated 9th February, 2010 alloted the said site for excavation to the petitioner and limited it to 3000 brass of sand. The period of excavation was to expire on 31st July, 2010. 2. However, Shri Shamsunder Gavli, Divisional Officer from 2 wp3863 Malwan Tahsil Office along with the flying squad visited the site on 31st March, 2010 along with the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kankavali, Shri Nilesh Jadhav, when they noticed that the petitioner’s representative at the site i.e. Shri Vikrant Pratapsinh Sawant, produced before them three passbooks, and on checking they found duplicate passbooks and without any office stamp or signature of the Competent Authority. From the table drawer some more passbooks were recovered and a panchnama was drawn in the presence of two panchas. On the basis of the said report, the Collector, Sindhudurg, passed the impugned order dated 31st March, 2010 and cancelled the extraction licence granted to the petitioner. He was also issued a show cause notice on 6th April, 2010. The Petitioner, therefore, challenges the order dated 31st March, 2010 cancelling the excavation licence/ agreement. 3. Mr. Vikram Kumar, Collector of Sindhudurg, has filed the affidavit in reply and submitted that the petitioner was guilty of continuing irregularities and acting in breach of the order dated 9th March, 2010 and more so Condition No.21 and therefore by invoking his powers under Condition No.22, the permission for sand excavation has been withdrawn. The affidavit states that prima facie there was sufficient material on record on the basis of the report submitted by the 3 wp3863 Sub-Divisional Officer, Kankavli on 31st March, 2010 that the petitioner and/or his Manager were guilty of fraudulent behaviour. 4. We do not find any reason to show our indulgence in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Collector and hence this writ petition must fail. However, the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 6th April, 2010 by the Tahsildar, Malvan, should be taken to its logical conclusion, namely, the reply to be submitted or already submitted by the petitioner to the said show cause notice will be considered and a final order on the said show cause notice will be passed by the Competent Officer expeditiously. We have also noted that the contract period has already expired on 31st July, 2010 and hence even otherwise as of now the challenge to the order dated 31st March, 2010 does not survive on that count also. 5. Hence, the writ petition is, save and except the above directions, rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (A. A. SAYED, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)