IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 64 OF 2010 SHRI DILIP SURYA SAWANT AND 15 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 7 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S.M. Walwaikar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Anthony D'Silva, Advocate for the Respondent no.6 to 9. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for Respondent no.1 to 5. Coram:- A. S. OKA & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 19th July, 2010 P.C: Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners. 2. The petitioners claim to be traditional river sand extractors carrying on the extraction of sand. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 14th September, 2009 passed by the District Magistrate in exercise of powers under section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Clause 2 of the said order reads thus: "2. Therefore, in the interest of public safety and convenience, I Shri Mihir Vardhan District Magistrate, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as proposed and recommended by the Superintendent of Polcie (North), Porvorim, hereby prohibit the movement of all sand laden vehicles to and fro from Tonca junction (way to Akhada) to Akhada bridge within the jurisdiction of St. Estevam village." 3. The case of the petitioners is that there are illegal constructions erected by the side of the road in respect of which the impugned order has been passed. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that if the said illegal structures are removed, the road will be widened and there will be sufficient space which can accommodate the sand laden trucks to pass freely without posing danger to anybody. He submitted that the result of the order passed by the District Magistrate is that the petitioners are prohibited from taking sand laden trucks from Tonca junction to Akhada bridge. 4. The submission of the counsel appearing for the petitioners is that by taking undue advantage of the said order, entry of the sand laden trucks is not permitted through other free routes which are not subject matter of the order. He invited our attention to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner and in particular paragraph 5 thereof. 5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The order dated 4th September,2009 passed by the District Magistrate notes that the District Magistrate received reports stating that the villagers of the villagers of St. Estevem are facing fear of anticipated mishaps/accidents from the continuous movement of trucks transporting sand on narrow roads and further that the movement of these trucks is disturbing the peace and calm of the village. We find that there was reconsideration of the said decision and that a report of the Deputy Collector was called for by the District Magistrate. Considering all the aspects, the Deputy Collector submitted a report dated 14th September, 2009, recording a well reasoned recommendation that the order may not be modified. The recommendation was made after hearing the Petitioners. 6. To prevent accidents and mishaps and to minimize nuisance to the residents of the said village, the impugned order has been passed in exercise of the powers under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. We do not find any error in the said order passed by the District Magistrate, which is based on material on record. 7. It is alleged that there are illegal structures which have been errected by the side of the road in question and as a result of the illegal structures, the width of the road has been narrowed. The ninth respondent, Village Panchayat will look into this aspect and if there are any illegal structures erected, the Village Panchayat shall proceed to demolish the illegal structures in accordance with law. 8. Subject to the aforesaid direction contained in paragraph 7 above, we reject the petition. However, if there is any major change in the circumstances, the petitioners can always apply for modification of the impugned order. Any such application will be considered on its own merits. 9. There is no basis for apprehension that the impugned order will be used for preventing the Petitioners from using other roads. The impugned order relates to the area specifically mentioned therein. A. S. OKA, J. F. M. REIS, J. ap/-