WP No. 5002/09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5002 OF 2009 Yeshwant Bahu-Udheshiya Seva Bhavi Sanstha, through its Chairman, Rajendra Tukaram Mhaske, Age 32 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, R/o. Shriram Nagar, Mondha Road, Beed. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 3. The Collector, Jalna. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Partur, Tq. Ghansavangi, Dist. Jalna. 5. The Tahsildar, Ghansavangi, Dist. Jalna. ....Respondents. Mr. Shivshankar Mathpati h/f. Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. Dated : 13th October 2011. ORDER : [ PER T. V. NALAWADE, J. ] 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution WP No. 5002/09 2 of India against the State Government and Collector, Jalna for giving directions to them to allow the petitioner to extract sand for 36 days more due to circumstance like, for some contract period the petitioner could not extract the sand from the site allotted to it. Both the sides are heard. 2. The petitioner participated in the auction held by respondents on 21.2.2009 for getting the right to extract sand from river bed of Godawari at Ramasgaon, Tahsil Ghansavangi, District Jalna. The bid of the petitioner was of highest amount and therefore, it was accepted by the Collector. The petitioner deposited the amount of Rs. 15.60 lacs with the Collector and then the contract was made. It is the case of the petitioner that behind its back inspection of site was made on complaints received by Collector and direction was given by the Collector to prevent the petitioner from extracting sand. It is contended that this direction was cancelled and the petitioner was again permitted to extract the sand vide letter dated 13.5.2009. It is contended that it was to extract the sand during specified period (up to 31.7.2009). It could not extract the sand for about 36 days due to stay granted by the Divisional Commissioner and so loss is caused to it. The petitioner wants directions against the respondents that it should be allowed to extract the sand from the WP No. 5002/09 3 aforesaid site for 36 days more. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the State have filed affidavit-in-reply. It is contended that as per the agreement the petitioner was to excavate the sand from the site of 200 x 50 x 1 mtrs. and it was not to go beyond the depth of 1 mtr. It is contended that the petitioner was to extract 3534 brass of sand only as per the agreement. It is contended that complaints were received from the villagers of Ramasgaon, Jalna District and Borgaon Thadi, Beed District that the petitioner was excavating sand from more area. These two places are adjacent to each other. It is contended that the Officers visited the site and prepared the panchanama of the site in presence of representatives of the petitioner and relevant documents were made available to the representatives of the petitioner. It is contended that the panchanama dated 7.4.2009 is signed by the petitioner's representatives and it is binding on it. 4. It is the case of respondents that in the enquiry, it transpired that more excavation was done and when the limit was prescribed in the agreement as the quantity of 3534 brass, it transpired that petitioner had excavated and transported 16043 brass sand from Ramasgaon bed, 10240 brass sand from WP No. 5002/09 4 adjoining area of village Bogaon Thadi, District Beed. It is contended that hearing was given to the petitioner when the enquiry was made and only after verification of the complaints made against the petitioner and after drawing of the panchanama steps were taken. 5. Along with the reply the respondents have produced the copies of record of enquiry which includes copy of panchanama. It is consistent with the aforesaid contentions made for respondents. The report contains the measurement of the site. This record shows that 12509 brass of sand was illegally excavated and taken from Ramasgaon site and there was illegal excavation of 10240 brass of sand at Borgaon Thadi, District Beed. It appears that starting of proceeding for imposing penalty was also proposed in the report. Copies of relevant Government Resolutions in respect of giving of such rights are produced. There is no reason to disbelieve this record in view of the aforesaid circumstances. 6. The petitioner relied on the decision given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2608/2009 [Coram : N. V. Dabholkar and A.V. Potdar, JJ.] dated 6.5.2009. In view of the facts of that case, relief was given to the petitioner and direction WP No. 5002/09 5 was given to the respondents to allow the petitioner to excavate the sand for 31 days more to make the sand extracted 3181 brass. The facts of the present case are entirely different. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts of the case and circumstances, this Court holds that no relief can be given to the petitioner in the present proceeding and the petition stands rejected. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/wp