1 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN ITS CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5640 OF 2009 Kishor Alias Krushna Yashwant Yerunkar & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Shri Sachin S. Punde for the Petitioners Smt. S.S.Bhende, AGP for State Shri C.G.Gavnekar for Respondent Nos.4,5 & 6 Coram: P.B.MAJMUDAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. 22nd June, 2010 P.C. 1. By way of this Petition, the Petitioners pray that appropriate writ order may issued directing the Respondent No.4 to 6 not to carry out mining operation in Survey No.49, Hissa No.13 of Mauje Village, Chandhve Khurd, Taluka Mahad, District Raigad. It is the case of the Petitioner that the 2 Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were not taking any steps preventing Respondent Nos.4 to 6 from carrying out mining operation in the said area. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the said Respondent Nos.4 to 6 are illegally carrying mining operation. On 6-5-2009 this Court passed following order: Learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6 states that he is not carrying out any mining operation since 2006. Learned AGP, after taking instructions from the Tahasildar, who is present in the Court, states that as on today, no mining operations are going on. Registry is directed to place on record affidavit-in-reply filed by the State, as it is informed to the Court that the same is filed in the Registry. Stand Over to 22-6-2010. 3 2. Today the Learned AGP pointed out that the Tahsildar, Mahad passed an order on 3-5-2009, by which, the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were asked to pay the royalty of Rs.40,77,277/-. The Learned Counsel Mr. Gavnekar for Respondent Nos.4 to 6 submits that on 6-5-2009, when the above Petition was heard by this Court, it was not pointed out that any such order was passed by the Tahsildar, Mahad. It is further submitted that when the matter was pending, such an order could not have been passed without hearing the Respondent Nos.4 to 6. The Learned AGP states that the present Tahsildar has not given the hearing but some other Tahsildar had given the hearing in the year 2006, to the Respondent Nos.4 to 6, since now the mining operation has already stopped, which fact is brought to our notice by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Learned AGP, it is not necessary to give further directions in this behalf. The Learned AGP states 4 that since the order dated 3-5-2009 is passed without hearing the Respondent Nos.4 to 6, the present Tahsildar would give fresh hearing and pass fresh order in this behalf in connection with fixing of royalty amount. The fresh hearing should be given to Respondent Nos.4 to 6 and fresh order to be passed within a period of two months from today. Accordingly the said order dated 3-5-2009 is quashed and set aside with direction to the Tahsildar to give a fresh hearing and pass a fresh order as above. The Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 6 fairly states that Respondent Nos.4 to 6 will not carry out mining operation so far as the disputed land is concerned. In the light of the above, the Petition to stand disposed of. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)