1 unreported IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.891 OF 2008. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2007. 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Collector, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. 3. The Tahsildar, Erandol, Taluka Erandol, Dist.Jalgaon. ... Appellants. Versus Abdul Saeed Abdul Rajjak Malik, Aged 31 years, Occ.Business, R/o Shanipeth, Jalgaon. ... Respondent. ... WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.892 OF 2008. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9688 OF 2006. 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Collector, Jalgao, Dist.Jalgaon. 3. The Tahsildar, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon. ... Appellants. 2 Versus Anil Baliram Sonawane, Age 30 years, Occ.Business, R/o Shanipeth,Jalgaon, Dist.Jalgaon. ... Respondent. ... WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.893 OF 2008. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10655 OF 2006. 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Collector, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. 3. The Tahsildar, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon. ... Appellants. Versus Satish Narayan Amrutkar, Aged 35 years, Occ.Business, R/o Jaikisan Wadi, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. ... Respondent. Mr.S.D.Kaldate, A.G.P.for the appellants. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 03.12.2009. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These three appeals arise out of 3 identical judgments rendered by the leaned Additional District Judge, in Civil Appeal Nos. 35/2003, 259/2002 and 257/2002. The appellants are original defendants. In each of the appeal, Respondent is original defendant. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that the Respondents participated in the public auction held for allotment of permits to excavate sand from bank of river Girna. The Respondents were allowed to draw sand from the bank of the river for period between 8.1.2001 to 30.11.2001 as per terms of contract which was reduced into writing. The Respondents deposited the amounts of royalty within the stipulated period. The Respondents became entitled to excavate the sand from the respective places in accordance with the allotment made in their favour. They removed the sand up till 17.7.2001. 3. It is undisputed that the Collector, Jalgaon directed the Respondents to stop the excavation work from 23.7.2001 onwards for the reason that the senior geologist had given 4 adverse report and excavation was detrimental to the ecology and environment. 4. The Respondents challenged the notices given to them by the Collector on the ground that termination of the contracts in the midst was likely to cause them heavy losses. They submitted that the notices issued by the Collector were bad in law. They submitted further that they were entitled to get extension of the period for which they were not allowed to excavate the sand from the river bank. 5. The parties went to trial over certain issues. The appellants' case was that due to report of senior geologist of Ground Water Survey Department, the Respondents were restrained from removing the sand from river bed. It was alleged that the Respondents can not insist for extension of the period. It was contended that as per condition No.21 of the contract, report of the geologist was binding on the Respondents. It was further pointed out that the Respondents had not sought extension of the period by filing any 5 representation. Consequently, the appellants (defendants) sought dismissal of the suits. The learned Civil Judge decreed the suits. The first appellate Court confirmed the decree while dismissing the appeals and held that the Respondents were each entitled to extension of 127 days period for the purpose of excavation of the sand from river bed. Therefore, part of the decree came to be modified. 6. Though served, the Respondents failed to appear in this Court. It appears that this Court directed final hearing of these appeals and disposal thereof at the stage of admission. It appears that learned Single Judge (Borde,J.) formulated the following substantial question of law for determination of the Second Appeal : "Whether the Civil Court was justified in granting decree in favour of the plaintiffs holding them entitled to extend the period of contract entered into on 8.12.2000 beyond the stipulated period, for further 127 6 days and as to whether the remedy, if any, is available to the plaintiff in claiming damages in the alleged breach." 7. Heard learned A.G.P. Mr.Kaldate, for the appellants. I am at a loss to hear the submissions of the Respondents because they did not appear in this Court. 8. It is pertinent to note that the terms of the contract clearly indicate that under no circumstances, the period of the license will be extended. The condition No.26 of the agreement would show that if the auction bidder had not taken possession of the plot of sand or that any difficulty was suffered by him, no extension of the stipulated period would be granted nor he will be entitled to seek refund of the earnest amount deposited by him. It appears from the record that the excavation of sand was stopped by the Collector as per the opinion and report of the Senior Geologist. There was justification for temporary suspension of the permits granted to the Respondents. It appears that by 7 communication dated 6.12.2001, the Tahsildar allowed extension of 44 days time w.e.f. 30.11.2001. Copy of the said communication (Exh. 23) is placed on record. 9. Nobody will deny that sand, which is inferior mineral, is not property of any individual. The removal of sand ought to be streamlined in accordance with availability of sand in the river bed and the ecological conditions. It is of common knowledge that excessive excavation of sand causes great harm to the ecology, including probability of soil erosion and changes in the course of the river bed. The permits ought to be issued under the Bombay Mineral Extraction Rules 1955. Under the Rules, any order refusing to grant lease or permit is appealable. Remedy of appeal is provided under Rule 33. An appeal will lie in case of cancellation of such lease or permit. The Respondents did not avail such appellate remedy. So also, the communication issued by the Collector could be challenged by filing appeal U/s 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 8 1966. The Respondents did not seek any of such alternate remedy. The Courts below utterly failed to see that the Respondents had no statutory right as such to excavate the sand for the relevant period. Whatever rights they had claimed, were the rights on the basis of permission granted to them. If any of the term of the agreement (contract) was breached by the Collector,then the only remedy available was to claim compensation for the losses which could have been resulted into due to such breach. The suits as framed by the Respondents were not maintainable. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to extend the period of excavation of sand by issuing mandatory injunction. The period of 127 days was extended beyond the term of the contract itself. Needless to say, both the Courts exceeded the jurisdiction and interfered with the contractual rights of the parties beyond permissible limits. The Civil Court can not interfere with the policy matters of the Government. Obviously, when there was apprehension that excavation of the sand was detrimental to the ecology and availability of 9 water resources was likely to be diminished, the Collector was well justified in suspending the license/permits for further period. The Civil Court ought not to have substituted its discretion in place of the discretion of the competent Revenue Authority when the Respondents had no statutory right as such to insist for excavation of the sand. 10. At this juncture, I may observe that the Civil Courts must necessarily refrain themselves from entertaining the suits which relate to Policy matters of the Government. Mandatory injunction can not be issued so as to extend the period of license beyond the contractual period. The mineral like sand is the public property being available through natural resources. Obviously, it was expected that the Civil Court would take into consideration the fact that beyond term of the contract, the Respondents could not be allowed to carry out the excavation work at the places for which the initial permit was issued in their favour. Both the Courts below took perverse view while 10 granting extension of 127 days in favour of the Respondents. 11. Considering the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned judgments are unsustainable. The appeals are, therefore, allowed with costs. The impugned judgments are set aside. The suits be deemed as dismissed. 12. Interim stay applications are disposed of as the appeals are decided. The Collector would be at liberty to recover any compensation if it is found that sand is excavated by the Respondents beyond the period of contract. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/sa89108