1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2538 OF 2010 Ramkrishna V. Khot & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Ratnakar Pralhad Herekar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. S.M. Sabrad for the petitioners. Mr. V.G. Gavnekar for respondent no.1. Mr. R.M. Patne, A.G. P. for respondent nos.2 and 3. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 16TH JUNE 2010 P.C. : 1. The charge against the respondent no.1 is that he had unauthorisedly extracted sand from the “Karli Creek”. On the basis of a report of the District Mining Officer, Sindudurg, the Collector by his order dated 6th October 2009, imposed a penalty of Rs.14,27,580/- on the respondent no.1 for the alleged unauthorised mining of sand. The respondent no.1 challenged the said order before the Divisional Revenue Commissioner under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. By an order dated 4th February 2010, the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division allowed the appeal partly and remanded the matter back to the Collector for rehearing and directed him to redecide it in the light of the 2 observations made therein. 2. It appears that the entire extraction is not unauthorised. The respondent no.1 was granted licence to extract sand but the charge against him is that he extracted sand in excess of the licence granted to him. The Additional Collector has observed that there was no concrete material to show whether sand extracted was in excess of the licence granted and whether the sand sold was in excess of the quantity permitted to be extracted. The Additional Commissioner has also noted that no panchanama was drawn and even the returns filed by the respondent no.1 regarding quantity of sand extracted and the quantity sold were not examined by the Collector. In the absence of this material, the Additional Commissioner held that the Collector could not have imposed penalty and remanded the matter back to the Collector for holding appropriate enquiry and to determine whether there was unathorised extraction and if so to determine the quantity extracted in excess of the licence granted. 4. It is not disputed before me that the panchanama regarding excavation of sand was not drawn. It is also not disputed that the monthly returns filed by the respondent no. 3 1 regarding extraction of sand and sale thereof were also not scrutinised by the Collector. In view of this admitted position, the Additional Commissioner was right in setting aside the order of the Collector and remanding the matter back to the Collector for fresh enquiry. No interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 5. It is clarified that since a Division Bench has already granted permission to the petitioner to interfere, notice of fresh enquiry before the Collector shall be issued to the petitioner who would be allowed to be heard and adduce evidence, if any, in the matter. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)