mgn 1 pil-1-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.1 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.27 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.28 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.29 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.30 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.31 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2011 Matsya va Raeti Vyavasaik Sevabhavi ..Petitioner Sanstha, Dasgaon. Versus The Collector, Raigad & Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Gayatri Singh and Kranti L.C. For the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Patil, Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Ajay S. Patil, for respondent No.3. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. Thursday, 30 h June, 2011 PC: The petitioner is a registered Association of fisher folk community who also engage in the traditional form of manually excavating sand from the river beds for their livelihood in Raigad district. The petitioner challenges clause 8 of the Government Resolution dated 25th October, 2010 issued by the Revenue and Forest Department, State of Maharashtra laying down instructions for issuing the licenses to mgn 2 pil-1-11.sxw hathpatis. The impugned policy required the Collector to invite the applications from the local hathpatis to participate in the auction process for awarding the licenses to the highest bidders. In the order dated 9th February, 2011 this Court had noted that it was suggested by the Government that the policy has been framed and if in the course of its implementation there are any difficulties the Government will adopt suitable corrective steps. We had, therefore, required the petitioners to make a representation to the State Government and asked the State Government to consider the petitioner’s representation with an observation that if the State Government found any substance in the petitioner’s grievance, then the State Government would take suitable corrective steps. 3. Mr. Patil, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Collector of Raigad and the State of Maharashtra has placed on record a copy of the communication dated 9th March, 2011 from the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, to the State Government in the Revenue and Forest Department and the copies of the letters dated 21st and 23rd March, 2011 from the State Government in the Revenue and Forest Department to the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division and states on the basis thereof that now the Collector has started issuing permits in favour of hathpatis for manually excavating sand from the river beds. 4. Ms. Gayatri Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the respondent authorities have started issuing permits to the hathpatis, there is no formal amendment of the Government Resolution. Further grievance is made that rate of royalty being charged by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division from the hathpatis in the four districts is at the rate of Rs.485/- per brass as against less than mgn 3 pil-1-11.sxw Rs.300/- per brass charged from the hathpatis in many other districts. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties we find that since the Government has already accepted the proposal of the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, for issuing permits in favour of the hathpatis for manually excavating sand from river beds, the Government will also consider making the necessary amendment to Clause 8 of the Government Resolution dated 25th October, 2010 issued by the Revenue and Forest Department. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the receipt of this order. 6. As regards the grievance about the rate of royalty, we are not going into the merits of the contention sought to be raised by the petitioner association. We leave it to the petitioner association to make a representation to the State Government and the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division. As and when such representation is made, the concerned authority will consider the same on its own merits. We may not, however, be treated to have expressed any opinion on the said issue. 7. Subject to the liberty granted to the petitioner and in terms of the above observations, this Public Interest Litigation is disposed of. 8. In view of the disposal of the P.I.L., the Civil Applications do not survive and the same are disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. mgn 4 pil-1-11.sxw