1 srk wp-1369-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1369 OF 2011 Shri Keshav Ambadas Porje ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents Mr.S.M. Oka i/by Mr. Sagar Joshi for the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Patil, Government Pleader for State. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. Wednesday, February 23, 2011 P .C. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged clause 5 of the Government Resolution dated 25th October, 2010 regarding the consequential notice dated 4th February, 2011, in respect of the auction with respect to the excavation of sand from various rivers falling in Nashik District, it is contended that the upset price for the sand to be excavated from the river beds in District Nashik should be the same as of the upset price of the sand to be excavated from river beds of the same river in Jalgaon district. Secondly, the notice dated 4th February, 2011 is challenged on the ground that the prospective bidders are given only 7 days as against 15 days period provided in the Government Resolution dated 25th October, 2010. 2 srk wp-1369-11.sxw 2. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the upset price has been fixed after taking into consideration all the relevant factors including the demand for sand in the concerned District and the price fixed higher than the offer received in the last year. 3. As regards the curtailment of notice period from 15 days to 7 days, it is submitted that the sand excavation season for the current year would be 31st July, 2011 and therefore, since considerable time has been lost in litigation and framing of the new policy, and also in view of the acute shortage of sand for the construction industry, it was found necessary to provide 7 days notice rather than the 15 days notice. It is further submitted that since auction is being held after inviting bids from the eligible persons, the method provided for in the Government Resolution dated 25th October, 2010 is being followed. It is submitted that giving the contract for auction is mandatory but the notice period of 15 days cannot be said to be mandatory and it will be treated as directory. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. As far as upset price is concerned, it is not for this Court to set in appeal over the upset price. The sand to be excavated from the river beds of different districts is as per the various factors stated by the Government Pleader. It is not for this Court to fix the upset price. Merely because the same river passes through different districts, it is not always necessary that the upset price must be the same. The Government Resolution dated 25th October, 2010 merely provides that ordinarily when sand is to be excavated from the river beds on the same river passing through different districts, there must be different upset prizes. As regards the curtailment of the notice period from 15 days to 7 days, the 3 srk wp-1369-11.sxw explanation offered on behalf of the respondents-authorities appears to be quite reasonable. 5. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.