1 caw.2869.09 ors.sxw ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2869 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3264 OF 2009 Ramkrishna V. Khot and ors. ... PETITIONERS Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ... RESPONDENTS And Nitin Pundalik Parab. ... APPLICANT INTERVENER WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2870 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3264 OF 2009 Ramkrishna V. Khot and ors. ... PETITIONERS Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ... RESPONDENTS And Sharad Achyut Lad. ... APPLICANT INTERVENER AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2871 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3264 OF 2009 Ramkrishna V. Khot and ors. ... PETITIONERS Vs. 2 caw.2869.09 ors.sxw The State of Maharashtra and ors. ... RESPONDENTS And Gurunath Yashwant Patkar. ... APPLICANT INTERVENER ­­­­­­­­ Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, Senior Counsel, a/w Mr. S.M. Sabrad for original Petitioners. Mr. A.I.I. Patel, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. S.M. Oak i/b Sagar Joshi for Applicants. ­­­­­­­­ CORAM : D.D. SINHA and A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 26 th February, 2010. P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the Applicants. 1 These Civil Applications are filed by the Applicants for modification of the order dated 7 th October, 2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3264 of 2009, whereby the Rule is issued and ad­interim order already granted vide order dated 31 st August, 2009 by this Court was continued. The learned counsel for the Applicants has brought to our notice order dated 09 th October, 2009 passed in the writ petition particularly the last few lines of the order, which reads thus: “Thus, we make it clear that the proceedings either initiated by the State of Maharashtra, the Collector and/or by respondent 3 caw.2869.09 ors.sxw No.6, the petitioners should be heard and should be made parties to those proceedings and without giving an opportunity to the petitioners no Orders shall be passed in respect of the auction sites involved in the Writ petition which is the subject matter of the Order in question.” 2 The learned counsel for the Applicants in Civil Application Nos. 2869 of 2009, 2870 of 2009 and 2871 of 2009 has submitted that so far as the Applicants are concerned, they have submitted their bids pursuant to the auction notice dated 13 th January, 2010 issued by the Collector. However, the auction proceedings could not be finalized in view of the interim order passed by this Court. The learned counsel also brought to our notice the order dated 15 th December, 2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3264 of 2009, which reads thus: “Heard learned counsel appearing for the Government and the learned counsel appearing for applicants. The learned counsel appearing for original petitioners is not present. As and by way of ad­interim order, the Collector is permitted to go ahead with the process of auctioning the sites other than the site which is subject matter of this petition. However, the bids may not be confirmed without seeking leave of the Court. Place the civil applications before the Court on 4 th January 2010.” 4 caw.2869.09 ors.sxw 3 The learned counsel for the Applicants has contended that the Petitioners in the Petition has canvassed the grievance about the illegal excavation of sands in respect of the certain sites. However, so far as the bids submitted by the Applicants pursuant to the auction notice are concerned, they are completely distinct and different than the sites involved in the Writ Petition. It is further contended that it is in this background, this Court vide order dated 15 th December, 2009, permitted the Collector to go ahead with the process of auction in respect of the sites other than the sites, which are the subject matter of the Petition with the rider that the bids may not be confirmed without seeking permission of the Court. 4 The learned counsel for the Applicants has submitted that the Collector has filed an affidavit dated 30 th January, 2010, wherein it has been categorically stated that auction will be conducted as per the existing policy of the Government, rules and regulations applicable in this regard and the interest of the villagers residing adjoining to the sites shall be protected. It is therefore contended that when the interest of the villagers is protected and the bids would be finalized strictly according to the policy of the Government, rules and regulations applicable in this regard, therefore, the interim order may kindly be modified in respect of the sites mentioned in the Civil Applications, which has even otherwise nothing to do with the sites involved in the Writ Petition. 5 caw.2869.09 ors.sxw 5 The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the interpretation put forth by the learned counsel for the Applicants in respect of the order passed by this Court is not correct. The interim order is neither diluted nor stands modified by subsequent order dated 09 th October, 2009. It is further contended that though the writ petition is confined to certain sites, however, the larger issue is to stop the illegal excavation of sands and protect the damage, which is likely to be caused to the villages, which are on the bank of the rivers, where illegal excavation was taking place on very large scale. It is further contended that, considering the gravity of the issue, this Court has taken cognizance of the matter and issued various orders from time to time and also directed the Collector to file affidavit on certain points. It is further contended that since the Collector has failed to respond, this Court thought it fit to pass interim order and stay the process of auction not only in respect of the sites involved in the writ petition, but in respect of other sites also. 6 The learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that in respect of order passed by this Court, the Respondent – Collector has included in the auction notice dated 13 th January, 2010, the sites involved in the Writ Petition those are at serial Nos.435, 436 and 437. It is therefore, prayed that the Collector may be directed not to auction these sites during the pendency of the Petition. The learned counsel for 6 caw.2869.09 ors.sxw the Petitioners further submitted that the Government Circular dated 04 th August, 2009 is holding the field, which also refers to the order dated 16 th September, 2008, which pertains to stay of auction of sand. It is contended that as per the policy of the State Government reflected in the said circular, the State is entitled to auction only such sites about which the recommendations are received from the concerned Gram Sabha and not otherwise. It is therefore contended that if at all this Court is inclined to modify the order of stay granted by this Court, the Collector be directed to strictly adhere to the policy reflected in the said circular as well as other Government Resolutions, which are applicable in this regard and not to deviate from this basic policy while finalizing the auction proceedings. 7 The learned AGP has submitted that the Collector has filed the affidavit, in which categorical statement has been made on oath that while conducting auction as well as while finalizing the same, the procedure stipulated in the rules and the regulations applicable in this regard shall be followed strictly and the entire process shall be conducted strictly in accordance with law. It is specifically submitted that, if the auction of these sites are required to be conducted as per the policy of the Government only in respect of those sites, which are recommended by the Gram Sabhas then the auction will be conducted and finalized only in respect of such sites in accordance with law. The learned AGP 7 caw.2869.09 ors.sxw assures this Court that while conducting the entire process of auction, the Collector shall not deviate from the basic procedure required to be followed by him in law, which is time being in force. The Civil Applications are disposed of accordingly. [ D.D. SINHA, J ] [ A.A. SAYED, J ]