1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P.No. 4557/2008 Shri Arun Kison Masram vs. The Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Aparajit Ninawe, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & A.H.JOSHI, JJ DATE : 20.10.2008 Heard Mr. Ninawe, the learned counsel for the petitioner who is the sarpanch of the Village Panchayat Kag in Taluka: Chimur, District: Chandrapur. The petitioner contends that on or about 14th August, 2008 the Collector, Chandrapur issued a public notification inviting tenders for lifting of sand from the river/ rive-beds in Chandrapur District and the auction was to take place on 9.9.2008 in the Collectorate at Chandrapur. This petition was filed on 25.9.2008 and objections were removed on 8.10.2008. It came up before us for admission today in the due course. 2. The petitioner contends that the challenge to the notification is based on the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha of Village Panchayat on 12.8.2008 and the Resolution No. 5 was passed unanimously stating that auction of lifting of sand from the rivers passing in the 2` vicinity of Village Kag should be given to the educated unemployed persons from the said village and in such an auction such educated persons ought to get preference. The petitioner further submits that the copy of the said Resolution was forwarded to the Collector on or before 5.9.2008 and despite this the Collector proceeded to issue the impugned notification. 3. From the record, it is clear that the Collector by his letter dated 6.9.2008 addressed to the petitioner informed that the auction sale was to take place in the Collectorate by 11.00 a.m. on 9.9.2008 and he was called upon to remain present. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the provisions of Section 45(3) read with Entry no. 15 in Schedule I of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1948. Section 45(3) of the said Act states that the Panchayat may also make the provisions for carrying out within the Village any other work or measures which is likely to promote the health, safety, education, comfort, convenience or social or Economic or cultural well being of the inhabitants of the village. Whereas the entry no. 15 in Schedule I of the said Act reads thus; “Promotion of social and moral welfare of the 3` village including promotion of prohibition, the removal of untouchability, amelioration of the condition of backward classes, eradication of corruption and the discouragement of gambling and useless litigation”. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regard to Section 45(3) read with entry 15 of Schedule I of the Act the resolution passed by Gram Sabha is binding on the Collector and the Gram Sabha has such right to pass resolution regarding auction sale of the sand and to be granted to the educated unemployed persons from the said village. In short, it is submitted that the Bombay Village Panchayat Act gives a right to the Village Panchayat to pass such a resolution and ensure that it is implemented. It is further claimed as the legal right of the Village Panchayat is brought in question by the Collector; the writ petition under Article 226 must be entertained and writ of mandamus must be issued against the Collector to implement the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha. 6. We have given our anxious considerations to all these submissions and the language of Section 45(3) as well as entry 15 of Schedule I of the Village Panchayat Act is clear and unambiguous. The sand in the river and in the river-bed is the property of the State Government. 4` The Notification issued by the Collector which is impugned in this petition did not debar any person whether educated unemployed or otherwise from Village Kag from participating the auction sale. At the same time the Resolution passed by the Village Panchayat can not bind the Collector and the nature of welfare activities like health, safety, education, comfort, convenience or social or economic or cultural well being of the inhabitants of the village cannot encompass the auction sale of the sand from the river. 7. We are, therefore, satisfied that no legal right of the Village Panchayat has been taken away or adversely affected by the impugned notification issued by the Collector and, therefore, no interference is called for in the same. The petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE patle 5`