IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 234 OF 2011 MR. RAMKRISHNA KASHINATH PARAB ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF GOA AND 13 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Ressano De Noronha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Rodrigues, Addl. Government Advocate for respondent no.1 to 9. Mr. Nilesh Shirodkar, Advocate for respondent nos. 10 to 14. Coram:- D. G. KARNIK & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 29th August, 2011 P.C. 1. The petition has been filed for issuing a Mandamus to respondent nos.3 and 4 to perform its statutory obligation regarding the prevention of sand mining. When asked which statute imposes any statutory obligation on respondent nos.3 and 4 to prevent sand mining and scope and contents of the prevention, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the prevention is contemplated under clause (x) of para 3 of the CRZ notification dated 06.01.2011. The said CRZ notification applies within 500 metres of high tide of the sea. Admittedly, the extraction of sand is being carried out is not of sand near the sea. As regards the creek, CRZ notification applies when an area within a distance of 100 metres from HTL. There is no specific mention about river bed but assuming that the same applies to 100 metres from the bank of the river, it is necessary for the petitioner to aver that the sand extraction is being carried out within 100 metres of the river bed. Therefore, there is no averment that the sand extraction is being carried out within 100 metres of the river bed. 2. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed. D. G. KARNIK, J. F. M. REIS, J. at*