1 W.P.No.4844/11 and other connected WPs. UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4844 OF 2011. Sandeep S/o Namdeo Borde, Age 25 years, Occ.Business, R/o Sawandgaon, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Revenue Department Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Collector, Collector Office, Aurangabad. 3. The Tahsildar, Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Vaijapur, Dist. Auragnabad. 5. The Circle Officer, Ladgaon Division, Vaijapur, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.N.D.Sonawane, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.P.Phatke, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the 2 W.P.No.4844/11 and other connected WPs. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5195 OF 2011 Ahilaji S/o Damodhar Damale, Age 43 years, Occ.Business, R/o Sidhapurwadi, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Collector, Collector Office, Aurangabad. 3. The Tahsildar, Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. 5. The Circle Officer, Lasurgaon, Division Lasur, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.N.D.Sonawane, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the Respondents. ... 3 W.P.No.4844/11 and other connected WPs. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5197 OF 2011. Raosaheb S/o Mohan Teke, Age 28 years, Occ.Business/ Agri., R/o Shivpur, Tal. Gangapur, Dist.Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1.The Collector, Aurangabad. Dist. Aurangabad. 2. The Tahsildar, Vaijapur, Tq. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.R.V.Gore, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the Respondents. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5301 of 2011 Sanjay S/o Laxman Kapse, Age 38 years, Occ.Business/Agri, R/o Lasur Station, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Collector, Aurangabad. Dist. Aurangabad. 2. The Tahsildar, Gangapur, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... 4 W.P.No.4844/11 and other connected WPs. Mr.R.V.Gore, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.P.Phatke, Addl.Govt. Pleader for the Respondents. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5413 of 2011 Raosaheb S/o Mohan Teke, Age 28 years, Occ.Business/Agri., R/o Shivpur, Tal. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Collector, Aurangabad. Dist. Aurangabad. 2. The Tahsildar, Gangapur, Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.R.V. Gore, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.P.Phatke, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the Respondents. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 08.08.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With 5 W.P.No.4844/11 and other connected WPs. the consent of the parties, the petitions are taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioners herein were granted permission by the Collector to remove sand as per quantity detailed in the said permission. The petitioners after depositing the amount, started lifting the sand. The petitioners were issued notices by the Tahsildar/Collector, asking the petitioners to show cause as to why amount of penalty as detailed in the said notice should not be recovered from them and in some of the notices it was asked as to why a criminal action should not be initiated against them. According to the petitioners, the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to issue such a notice. The jurisdiction vest only with the Collector. According to the learned counsel for the respective petitioners, the officers have already made up their mind and have asked for the payment of the penalty. Even amount of penalty is determined by the authority unilaterally, the measurements have not been done in presence of the petitioners or their representatives. In absence of the same, the 6 W.P.No.4844/11 and other connected WPs. notices can not be sustained. They are only speculative in nature. 4. Learned Addl/Asstt. Government Pleaders appearing for the Respondents does not dispute the position that notices of measurements were not served to the petitioners. 5. The basic principle of natural justice mandates that if any punitive action is to be taken against the petitioners, then opportunity requires to be given to them. The amount which is arrived at by the Respondents in the notice is based on pure speculation. There was no material provided to the petitioners to know the basis on which it can be said that the authorities have arrived at the finding about the excess quantity of the sand being lifted by the petitioners. The authorities are required to intimate the petitioners about the measurement. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.903/2008 decided on 17.6.2008, in similar set of facts had quashed the show cause notice as the same was merely speculative. Even the measurement reports 7 W.P.No.4844/11 and other connected WPs. were not given to the petitioners to which they are entitled to, as is held in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in a case of "Vijay Dashrath Shirbhate Vs. State of Maharashtra and another" reported in 2010(1) Mh.L.J.936. Moreover, the notice only gave petitioners three days to reply, that too without supplying any documents on the basis of which impugned notices were issued. 6. In light of the above, the impugned notices are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute with aforesaid observations. 7. Needless to state that the present order would not be an impediment for the authorities to initiate the process again and also to resort to any legal process and to take action against the petitioners. The authorities may take such action as is permissible in law after following the principles of natural justice and the due procedure established by law in 8 W.P.No.4844/11 and other connected WPs. respect of the subject matter of the impugned notices also. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp4844.11