1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1. WRIT PETITION NO.7442 OF 2009 M/s. Bhoomraddi Quarry .. Petitioners Vs The State of Maharashtra & anr .. Respondents WITH 2. WRIT PETITION NO.7483 OF 2009 M/s Dynasty Engineering & Construction Company .. Petitioners Vs The State of Maharashtra & anr .. Respondents WITH 3. WRIT PETITION NO.7484 OF 2009 M/s M.K.Stone .. Petitioners Vs The State of Maharashtra & anr .. Respondents WITH T 2 4. WRIT PETITION NO.7485 OF 2009 M/s Shree Kanchanganga Crushing Company .. Petitioners Vs The State of Maharashtra & anr .. Respondents WITH 5. WRIT PETITION NO.7486 OF 2009 M/s Thakur Stone Quarry .. Petitioners Vs The State of Maharashtra & anr .. Respondents Mr. N. V. Walawalkar, Senior Counsel, i/by Mr S. M. Sabrad, for the petitioners in all the petitions. Mr. R.M.Patne, AGP, for the respondent-State. Mr. Madhav Jamdar, Advocate, for the petitioner in PIL No. 140/09. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 09/09/2009 PC: 1. Heard Mr Walawalkar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr Patne, learned AGP, for respondent nos 1 and 2 3 and Mr Jamdar, learned counsel for Mr Pradip Indulkar, who is the petitioner in PIL No.140 of 2009. 2. These writ petitions challenge the orders passed by the Collector, Thane, all dated 12.8.2009, by which all the petitioners are directed to stop quarrying activity. From perusal of the orders dated 12.8.2009, it is clear that they are based on the observations made by the Division Bench, presided over by the Honourable the Chief Justice, in PIL No.140 of2009. The order dated 23.7.2009 passed in the PIL reads thus; “Notice. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State accepts notice and waives service and prays for time to file reply. Reply- affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, within two weeks thereafter. Notice to other respondents returnable on 10th September 2009. In the event the concerned persons do not have the licence to quarry in relation to the survey numbers mentioned in the writ petition and the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, no quarrying activity shall be carried on till then. The concerned officers shall be obliged to ensure that this direction is scrupulously observed. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.” (emphasis supplied) 4 3. Mr Walawalkar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, submits that from the observations made by this Court in the order dated 23.7.2009, it is clear that quarrying activity was directed to be stopped of those, who did not have the licence to quarry. He further submits that insofar as the petitioners are concerned, they all have valid licence to quarry and the Collector, without considering the facts, has issued the impugned order dated 12.8.2009. According to the petitioners, in response to the order dated 12.8.2009, they have made representation dated 17.8.2009 addressed to the Tahasildar (Sand site), Thane, inviting his attention to the fact that all the petitioners hold valid licence. Though, the order, impugned in the petitions, is passed by the Collector, the petitioners have addressed the representation to the Tahasildar. In view thereof and having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice. 4. The petitioners shall file fresh representation/application seeking appropriate reliefs before the Collector inviting his attention to the order passed in the PIL so also to the documents showing that they hold valid licence within a period of three days from today. If such a representation is made, same may be 5 considered by the Collector on merits in accordance with law and also in the light of the order passed by this Court in the PIL as expeditiously as possible and preferably within ten days from the date of filing of the representation. The petitioners are directed to make independent representation/application to the Collector with supporting documents within the stipulated time. While issuing these directions, I shall not be understood to have examined the case of the petitioners on merits. I also make it clear that I have not examined as to whether the petitioners have valid licence and the Collector shall decide the representations in accordance with law. Till the representations are decided and the orders are communicated to the petitioners, the impugned order shall remain in force. It is open to the petitioner in the PIL to file appropriate application, if he so desires to intervene before the Collector. 5. With these directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.) 6