wp8221.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8221 OF 2010 Sunil s/o Shivaji Darekar .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. R.R. Karpe, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for the State. ===== CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 8 th DECEMBER, 2010 PER COURT : 1 By way of present petition, petitioner raises grievance that though vide communication dt. 19-6-2009 the State Government has directed the Collector to allot him alternate piece of land for excavation of sand, the Collector is not doing the same. 2 According to the petitioner, he was allotted rights of excavation of sand in the year 2001. While he was excavating the sand, the villagers of wp8221.10 2 Arvi village prevented him from doing so. Petitioner thereafter made representation to the State Government and the State Government ultimately vide order dt. 19-6-2009 paid heed to the grievance of the petitioner and allotted him alternate piece of land. It is the contention of the petitioner that when the State Government has passed an order redressing the grievance of the petitioner, the Collector has no authority to refuse the same. 3 Learned AGP Mr. Tambe submits that in view of the notification issued by the State Government which has been published in pursuance to the directions issued by this court in the public interest litigation filed at Bombay, the prayer made in the present petition cannot be granted. 4 We firstly do not understand propriety of the State Government in issuing the order in 2009 when the alleged loss which the petitioner had suffered was in the year 2002. Even if the petitioner had tried to sue the respondents for damages, the same challenge would have been beyond the prescribed limitation. We have no hesitation in holding that the order dt. 19-6-2006 passed by the State Government is totally against the public interest. We therefore do not find it appropriate to issue direction to the wp8221.10 3 Collector to implement the order which in our considered view is against public interest. We find no merit in the petition. Petition stands dismissed. 5 Needless to state that if the petitioner is entitled to seek redressal under the common law, he would be entitled to do so strictly in accordance with law. ( R. M. BORDE ) ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb