1 S.A.NO.160.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 160 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Appellants V E R S U S Chatrabhuj Soma Sonwane ... Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9690 OF 2006 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 160 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Appellants V E R S U S Chatrabhuj Soma Sonwane ... Respondent ... Smt. V.A.More,A.G.P. for the Appellant-State Mr. M.S.Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Mr. B.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 5th MARCH, 2010 PER COURT 1] This Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the appellant No.1-State of Maharashtra discriminated against the respondent and denied him permission to excavate the sand from the river Girna. In view of this finding the Courts below decreed the suit and directed the appellants to permit the 2 S.A.NO.160.10 respondent to excavate the sand for a period of 127 days. 2] Having gone through the Judgments of the Courts below, and after having heard the learned Advocates for the parties it is seen that the controversy between the parties was basically factual. The Courts below mainly dealt with the facts and given the finding on facts. There was hardly any law point discussed in the Judgments of Courts below. 3] The respondent filed the suit on following cause of action- He said, he entered into contract with the appellants, whereby he was permitted to excavate the sand from the bank of river Girna for the period between 08.12.2000 to 30th November,2001. The contract contemplated that, in certain contingencies the contract can be cancelled and the work of excavation can be stopped and the Contractor would not have right to seek compensation. Some time, in July, 2001 the Government took policy decision to stop the excavation work of all Contractors in the District and accordingly the appellant stopped excavation work from 23rd July, 2001. No permission was given to commence the work of excavation till contractual period ended on 30th November,2001. However, thereafter, the other similar placed Contractors -but not the 3 S.A.NO.160.10 respondent- were allowed excavation for the period of 44 days. The respondent was not given such facility. The respondent, therefore, filed suit alleging discrimination. It was his case that, it was policy of the State Government that each contractor would be given such period for excavation, which he had lost earlier due to the order of the Government. The appellant took up the stand in the written statement that they were ready and willing to give the respondent a period of 44 days for excavating the sand. They tried to suggest that the State Government took policy decision to grant only a period of 44 days for excavating to each contractor, who were similarly placed. But the respondent could prove that the policy of appellant was to give “extension” equivalent to the period which the contractor had lost. In view of this, the Courts below held in favour of the respondent. There is hardly any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Thus, the appeal should fail. The Second Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Application No. 9690 of 2006 also stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/ok