1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9303 OF 2009 Sanjay Devidas Sathe .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. J. Shekhar i/b M/s. J. Shekhar & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. R. Patne AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 4th February, 2010. P.C. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of cancellation of his licence to excavate sand in river Bhima at Pandharpur. The petitioner was issued show cause notice by the Collector on 01.10.2008 when he was seen over excavating. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 06.10.2008. Since the authority had received complaints in respect of overexcavating, they carried out their independent inspection. They have made a panchnama of the activities of excavation and several vehicles, trucks and goods. The petitioner’s licence specified the extent of his 2 excavation of sand of 2250 brass. The panchnama shows the activities of the petitioner for the excavation. 2. The affidavit of Ranghnath Rao D. Ramarao, District Mining Officer of the respondent has detailed the extent of the petitioner’s activities. The petitioner was given permission for use of one boat. The petitioner used seven additional boats and two JCB machines. The authority observed 75 trucks on the site out of which six trucks and one tractor was loaded with sand. Eight boats were at the site. 185 brass sand was collected. The petitioner was issued notice. He claimed only one boat belongs to him. The petitioner’s overexcavation cannot be nullified by the fact that he does not own other boats. The petitioner has not submitted his accounts. 3. The authority found various bogus transit passes issued by petitioner to truck owners. They have been seized. A FIR has been filed. 4. The Petitioner’s Advocate contends that the 3 petitioner has filed an appeal against the first show cause notice issued to him before the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division. The status quo order was passed. Despite that the petitioner’s licence is cancelled. The show cause notice has nothing to do with the cancellation of the licence. The cancellation of licence can be separately challenged on merits as is done in this case. No merits in the petitioner’s case is seen. The petitioner can not be allowed to continue the licence after he seen to overexcavate. The writ petition is devoid of merits and his dismissed. (R. S. DALVI, J.)