1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.707 OF 2010 1. Sahebrao Asaram Walture, Age 57 Yrs, Occu.Agril 2. Nana Madhav Walture, Age : 38 Yrs, Occu.Agril, 3. Balasaheb Raoji Deokate, Age : 37 Yrs, Occu.Agril, 4. Sitaram Nana Shinde, Age : 48 Yrs., Occu.Agril All R/o Newargaon, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad ..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Collector, Collector Office, Aurangabad 3. The Tahasildar, Gangapur, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad 4. The Senior Geologist Officer, Ground Water Survay, Collector Office, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr N.J. Pahune Patil, Advocate for petitioners; Mr K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondents. 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 4th May, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] Civil Application No.4297 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner seeking to amend the petition as per the proposed amendment disclosed in the application. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated in the application, we allow this application and permit the petitioner to amend the petition as per the proposed amendment. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioners are villagers/agriculturists residing at village Newargaon, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad. According to the petitioners their agricultural land and the village is situated on the bank of Godavari river. The petitioners challenge the auction notice issued by the Government regarding auctioning of the sand. 3 4. The principal ground on which the said auction is opposed by the petitioners is that no meeting of the Gramsabha was held and that the certificate which was obtained by the respondents from the Senior Geologist was incorrect as the Senior Geologist had surveyed the Godavari river bed when there was back water from the Jayakwadi dam. The petitioners contend that the survey when there is water in the bed is contrary to the norms set down by the Government itself. The petitioners, therefore, opposed the auction on the ground that excavation of sand is likely to cause ecological damage. 5. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply the respondents have contended that the meeting of the Gramsabha had been convened and have also annexed to their affidavit in reply the proceedings of the said meeting. The respondents have also contended in their affidavit that the norms which have been prescribed have been fully followed. Re-survey came to be conducted sometime on 28.2.2010 and 22.3.2010. As per the resurvey the two sites have been recommended for excavation of sand. A report of the re-survey signed by the Senior Geologist has also been tendered before us. 4 6. This petition raises several disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into. The Senior Geologist in no uncertain terms has recommended the excavation of sand. The aforesaid report of the Senior Geologist, which is dated 6.1.2010, is further reiterated by the resurvey which was carried out subsequently. The re-survey report reinforces the earlier findings by the Senior Geologist. This Court does not have the necessary expertise to determine if there is sufficient quantity of sand available in the river bed for excavation. The petitioners have not annexed any document to the petition to indicate that the report of the Senior Geologist is factually incorrect or is based on wrong premises. The first premise of the petitioners that no meeting of the Gramsabha has been convened is itself proved to be incorrect. On mere surmises the petitioners contend that ecological damage is likely to be caused. In that light of the matter, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this petition on that score. 7. The petitioners contend that as per the Government Resolution if a dispute is raised, the same is required to be referred by the Collector to the Government. The petitioners have accordingly amended the prayer clause to incorporate such a relief. 5 8. We, therefore, dismiss this petition insofar as it relates to prayer clauses (B), (C) and (D) of the petition are concerned and partly allow the petition in respect of the prayer clause (D-1) directing the respondent no.2 Collector to communicate with the State Government about the resistance of the petitioners for auctioning of the sand. 9. Rule is thus made absolute in respect of prayer clause (D-1) is concerned, to the extent indicated above with no order as to costs. This petition stands dismissed in respect of prayer clause (B), (C) and (D) with no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp707.10