PNP 1 WP451-18.1.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.451 OF 2011 Gurunath Yashwant Patkar ..Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents. ..... Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam for the Petitioner. Mr. Vijay D. Patil, AGP with Mr. S.K. Shinde, AGP for the Respondents. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA , JJ. 18 January 2011. P.C. : 1. In these proceedings the Petitioner impugns an order passed by the Pollution Control Board on 18 June 2010 and a communication of the Tahsildar, Malvan dated 19 June 2010 stopping the excavation of sand from block No.KBK-4B and 5A between village Devali and Kolvan. The Petitioner also seeks relief to the effect that he should be allowed to excavate the balance quantity of 2476.5 brass of sand till 31 July 2011 on the conditions mentioned in the order of the Collector dated 22 April 2010. 2. By an order of the Collector, Sindhudurg dated 22 April 2010 the Petitioner was permitted to lift 3000 brass of sand excavated by means of suction pumps until the period ending 31 July 2010. The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board by its order dated 18 June 2010 PNP 2 WP451-18.1.sxw recorded that its consent had not been obtained and dredging activities were carried on without its permission. Steps were directed to be taken for closure of the operations in exercise of statutory powers. The Tahsildar communicated this to the Petitioner on 19 June 2010. In appeal, the Additional Commissioner recorded the statement of the Petitioner that the application for consent pending before the Pollution Control Board was likely to be disposed of within one week and disposed of the appeal. Subsequently on 12 August 2010 in a petition moved before the Division Bench by the Petitioner, there was a direction to the Board to decide the application within a period of eight weeks. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Pollution Control Board has not disposed of the application and in the meantime, the State Government has taken steps for auctioning the area from which the Petitioner was permitted to excavate sand. 4. We find merit in the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the Petitioner was granted a temporary permission for three months which expired on 31 July 2010 for excavation of sand. Under the policy of 5 September 2003, it has been stipulated that in the event that the contract is cancelled or if the contractor is restrained from excavating sand, the government would not be liable to pay any compensation, but the contractor would be entitled to a refund pro-rata of the amount paid. A similar stipulation is also contained in clause 6 of the conditions subject to which the Collector had granted permission to the Petitioner on 22 April 2010. Hence, the remedy of the Petitioner would lie only to seek a refund of the pro- PNP 3 WP451-18.1.sxw rata consideration deposited with the State. That apart, a new policy has now come into force. The new policy was brought into force by the State Government following the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of petitions in which the improper implementation of the earlier policies and the unrestricted excavation of sand were seriously brought into issue. The State Government has now brought into force a new policy to curb the misuse and to streamline the procedure for excavation of sand from the rivers, creeks and the streams. In that view of the matter and particularly since the period for which the Petitioner was granted a licence has expired, we do not consider it appropriate to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 by directing an extension of the contract or extension of the period to excavate sand. We, however, direct the State in terms of the statement by the learned Government Pleader before this Court, which in terms is based on the conditions of the earlier policy, and the conditions attached to the licence granted to the Petitioner, to refund pro-rata a part of the consideration. In the event that the Petitioner makes an application with the Collector, Sindhudurg, a decision in terms as stated before the Court shall be taken and implemented within a period of four weeks of the receipt of the application. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (Anoop V. Mohta, J.)