1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5072 OF 2009 (Sau. Nilima w/o Sudhakar Rohankar vs. The State and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5093 OF 2009 (Shri Sudhakar s/o Tulshiram Rohankar vs. The State and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5214 OF 2009 (Shri Sudhakar s/o Tulshiram Rohankar vs. The State and another) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.W. Sambre, Government Pleader for the respondent no.1. Shri S.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent no.2. ------- CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND P.B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : JUNE 24, 2010 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioners in these three writ petitions have impugned the orders, all dated 17/9/2009, passed by the Collector, Chandrapur. Though the orders passed by the Collector, dated 17/9/2009 in all the three writ petitions are separate, 2 they are similar and hence, these petitions are disposed of by common order. By the impugned orders, the mining lease sanction orders in favour of the petitioners have been withdrawn with retrospective effect and the petitioners are prohibited from carrying out mining/non forest activities on the lands allotted to them on lease. Shri Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submitted that the impugned orders were passed by the Collector without issuing notice to the petitioners and without hearing them and in view thereof, the orders passed by the Collector deserve to be set aside and the matter be remanded for fresh decision. This submission of Shri Sirpurkar has not been disputed by Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader. On instructions, he confirms that notice was not issued to the petitioners and they were not heard before passing of the impugned orders by the Collector. He further submitted that if this Court is inclined to remand the matter to the Collector for deciding the same afresh, the petitioners be injuncted from carrying out mining/non forest activities till the 3 matter is decided by the Collector. Similar contentions were urged by Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. There is no dispute that the impugned orders were passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. In view thereof, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. We are satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice : (a) The orders, all dated 17/9/2009, impugned in all the three writ petitions, passed by the Collector, Chandrapur are set aside. (b) The Collector, Chandrapur shall decide the matter in respect of the mining lease in favour of the petitioners afresh, on merits in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioners are directed to produce a copy of this order before the Collector within a period of two weeks from today. (c) The Collector shall give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, respondent no.2 and the complainant on whose complaint the impugned 4 orders were passed by the Collector. (d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the matters before the Collector, the petitioners are restrained from carrying out any mining/non forest activity on the lands allotted to them on lease. The petitioners are directed to file undertaking in this Court within a period of one week from today stating that they shall not carry out any such activity with an advance copy thereof to the Advocates for the respondents. The petitioners are also directed to produce copies of the undertaking before the Collector on the first date of hearing. (e) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. (f) It is open to the petitioners so also to respondent no.2 and the complainant, if any, to file documents in support of their contentions before the Collector, if they so desire. (g) While passing this order, we shall not be understood to have examined the merits of the case or issued any direction to the Collector to decide the matter afresh in one way or the other. The Collector shall decide the matter afresh without being 5 influenced by this order. At this stage, learned Counsel for the parties pray for issuance of direction to the parties to appear before the Collector on a particular date. We are inclined to pass such order. The parties are accordingly directed to appear before the Collector on 12/7/2010 at 11 A.M. With these observations/directions, the petitions are disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj