1 W.P. No. 275/1999 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 275 OF 1999 Eknath S/o Govindrao Gore Age : Major, Occ. Agril., R/o : Hamal galli, Tq. Paithan, Dist. : Aurangabad. .... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Govt. Pleader High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. 2. The Tahsildar Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. 3. Bhanudas Govindrao Gore Age : Major, Occ. Agril., R/o : Hamal galli, Tq. Paithan, Dist. : Aurangabad. .... RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.M.Dabir, Advocate for petitioner. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 03/08/2010 2 W.P. No. 275/1999 - ( J ) ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER - S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 1. The petitioner assails the order passed by respondent no. 2 dated 29/10/1998, thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner for excavation of the soil and for grant of licence to run the brick kiln. 2. Mr. Dabir, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the reasons that are given for rejection, are improper. As far as reason regarding the land under acquisition is concerned, the same does not survive as the Sub Divisional Officer has issued a letter dated 29/9/1998 stating that the said land is no longer under acquisition and the same is released from acquisition. The second reason that is stated is that this Court vide Order in Writ Petition No. 1493 of 1998 has accepted the statement of the respondent that in S.Nos. 221 to 228, all the brick kilns have been closed. The said statement has been accepted by the Court and on the basis of the said statement, has disposed off the said Writ Petition. Mr. Dabir contends that there is no order of the Court for closure of the brick kilns in the said Survey numbers, but it was on the basis of the statement. 3. The statement made has been accepted by the Court. More over, the respondents in their affidavit in reply have given detailed reasons for 3 W.P. No. 275/1999 - ( J ) non grant of the licence in favour of the petitioner. It has been stated by the respondents that to protect the life, property and the residential houses from the flood, the permission has been rejected to the petitioner. According to them, if the soil is allowed to be removed from the said Survey numbers, then that would result in floods. As the river Godavari flows East – West and if excavation is permitted then due to the erosion, the flood water of the river, without any protection will enter into residential area, the same would be injurious to the residential area. So also, other reasons are given that the production of the bricks at the said place would be hazardous to the human body due to the production of Carbon Monoxide gas, so also Sulpher-dia oxide. 4. We see no error in the order passed by the respondents. The reasons have been given. 5. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/ WP 275.99