FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11677 OF 2010 “Dattarao Tukaram Renge Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others” Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. Pramod C. Mayure, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. N.B. Khandare, Govt. Pleader for respondents. CORAM :- D.B. BHOSALE & A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE :- 15th March, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent to extend the period for excavation/removal of sand by 75 days (i.e. for the period between 18.1.2010 and 1.4.2010). The petitioner has also prayed for compensation for the loss of the period for excavation of sand from the sand block allotted to him in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31/12/2009. 3] Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have filed reply affidavits. From bare perusal of the writ petition and the reply affidavits, it is clear that the petition raises several disputed questions of fact in the present writ petition, which, in our opinion, cannot be gone into, in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11677 OF 2010 “Dattarao Tukaram Renge Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others” Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 India. Moreover, the petitioner took possession of the sand blocks on 1.4.2010, without making any grievance for excavation of 1583 brass sand. It is not possible to find out whether the petitioner excavated 1583 brass sand from the sand block, allotted to him, before the expiry of the period for which the contract was given. It is also not possible to enter into an issue, as to who was responsible for the delay in handing over the site to the petitioner. In any case, the Government cannot be blamed for the delay in handing over the site apart from the fact that the petitioner took possession of the site for excavation/removal of 1583 brass sand, without making any grievance or without reserving his right to seek extension as prayed. 4] With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. Order accordingly. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] grt/- FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11677 OF 2010 “Dattarao Tukaram Renge Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others” Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 3