Rajesh Sadanand Patil & others vs Additional Collector & others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2003 Supreme(Bom) 181

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Thakker C.K., C.J. Dr. Chandrachud D.Y., J.
Rajesh Sadanand Patil others .... Petitioners.
Versus
Additional Collector others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition Nos. 7446, 7447, 7448, 7486, 7492, 7503, 7504, 7506 of 2002 with W.P. Nos. 4, 6, 29, 30, 128, 219, 220, 221, 232, 252, 253, 254, 255, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262 of 2003 with W.P. (St.) No. 2231, 3392, 3402, 3720 of 2003, decided on 27-1/13-2-2003.
Advocates appeared :
S.M. Sabrad, in W.P. Nos. 7446, 7447, 7448/2002 in W.P. 6/2003, for petitioner.
R.M. Patne A.G.P., in W.P. Nos. 7446, 7447, 7448, 7506/2002 in W.P. Nos. 4, 6/2003, for respondents.
P.N. Joshi, in W.P. Nos. 7486 7492/2002, for petitioner.
Smt. J.S. Pawar, A.G.P., in W.P. Nos. 7486, 7492/2002 in W.P. Nos. 29, 30, 128, 219, 220, 221, 232, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262/2003 in W.P. (St.) Nos. 2231, 3392, 3402, 3720/2003, for respondents.
V.S. Kapse, in W.P. Nos. 7503, 7504/2002, for petitioner.
C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P., in W.P. Nos. 7503, 7504/2002, for respondents.
A.V. Anturkar, in W.P. No. 7506/2002, for petitioner.
S.A. Sawant, in W.P. No. 4/2003, for petitioner.
P.S. Dani, in W.P. Nos. 29, 30/2003, for petitioner.
B.D. Joshi, in W.P. No. 128/2003, for petitioner.
S.P. Kadam, in W.P. Nos. 219, 220, 221/2003 in W.P. (St.) No. 3720/2003, for petitioner.
M.N. Zambre, in W.P. No. 232/2003, for petitioner.
R.S. Datar, in W.P. Nos. 252, 253, 254, 255/2003, for petitioner.
P.M. Patil, A.G.P., in W.P. Nos. 252, 253, 254, 255/2003, for respondents.
S.B. Shetye, in W.P. Nos. 258, 259, 260, 261, 262/2003, for petitioner.
Vilas Tapkir, in W.P. (St.) No. 2231/2003, for petitioner.
S.M. Gorwadkar, in W.P. (St.) No. 3392/2003, for petitioner.
M.S. Lagu, in W.P. (St.) No. 3402/2003, for petitioner.

Headnote:Constitution of India - Article 226 - Mass-level cancellation of sand excavating lease - Contention - Orders are arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights - Contra contention - State had banned lifting of sand - Hence contract was cancelled - Held - Government never took a decision to cancel lease already granted to lease holders - Impugned orders did not follow exact intention of state - Cancellation order therefore set aside. - It appears that a note was submitted by the Department of Mines and Minerals on the subject of "Minor Minerals" under Item No. 3: "Revision of Rates of Royalties on Minor Minerals" to be discussed by the Cabinet. Certain decision were taken by the Cabinet. The first decision related to revised rates of royalty on minor minerals. Secondly, it stated that such revised rates would be brought into force with effect from the date of their publication in Government Gazette. It was then stated that extraction of sand from river beds and auction thereof would be suspended. It was observed that "hereafter" till new policy would be formulated, extraction of sand shall be allowed on permit basis at the revised rates of royalty. However, such permit would be issued only to those persons using the sand.
Words and Phrases - Hereafter - See Constitution of India, Article 226.

JUDGMENT - THAKKER C.K., C.J.:---Rule. Smt. J.S. Pawar, Additional Government Pleader, Mr. R.M. Patne, Mr. C.R. Sonawane, and Mr. P.M. Patil, Assistant Government Pleaders, appear and waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents. In the facts and circumstances, all the petitions were taken for final hearing.

2. In all these petitions, common questions of fact and law have been involved. It is, therefore, appropriate to decide all of them by a common judgment.

3. In the present group of petitions, orders passed by the respondents cancelling all contracts and leases for extraction of sand have been challenged, inter alia on the grounds that the orders are arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioners.

4. To appreciate the controversy raised in the petitions, few relevant facts in the first petition being Writ Petition No. 7446 of 2002 may be stated.

5. According to the petitioner, an auction was held for extraction of sand at the spot of Mouje-Tanshi. The petitioner was the highest bidder. His bid was, therefore, accepted. Before the petitioner was put in possession of the said spot, villagers raised certain objections which necessitated the petitioner to request the respondents for alternative spot. The request was granted and an alternate spot was allotted to the petitioner at Mouje-Malthan, Taluka Daund, District Pune. On 3rd August, 2001, the petitioner received a letter from respondent No. 2, Tahsildar, Daund, directing the petitioner to stop extraction work at Mouje-Malthan. As the petitioner was in lawful and legal possession of the spot and was entitled to extract sand and yet was restrained from extracting sand, he instituted Writ Petition No. 3804 of 2001 in this Court.

6. On behalf of respondents, an affidavit was filed stating therein that the State Government had put a ban for lifting of sand and hence a consequential letter was issued by respondent No. 2. On November 8, 2001, this Court disposed of the petition by directing respondents to grant necessary extension to the petitioner so that he could proceed with the extraction of sand in accordance with the contract entered into between the parties. Accordingly, the petitioner was put in possession of the said spot at Mouje-Malthan on December 15, 2001. It was also the case of the petitioner that he could not immediately extract sand, since one Ganesh Devkate started illegal extraction of sand from the spot which was allotted to the petitioner. It appears that proceedings were initiated against Devkate, he was found extracting sand illegally and was ordered to pay fine of more than Rs. 25,00,000/-. The petitioner in the circumstances had again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2786 of 2002, seeking necessary direction to respondents to grant extension to the petitioner for extracting sand.

7. In an affidavit on behalf of the respondents, it was admitted that Mr. Devkate had illegally extracted sand and the petitioner could not get the benefit of the contract which was awarded. On May 2, 2002, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to put the petitioner in possession of the spot at Mouje-Malthan to extract sand for the remaining period of eight months. Even thereafter the petitioner was not put in possession of the spot, contempt proceedings were initiated and thereafter the order of this Court was complied with.

8. The petitioner has stated that on 21st December, 2002, he received an order dated 17th December, 2002, passed by respondent No. 2. By the said order, he was asked to stop extraction work from 24th December, 2002. No reason and/or ground whatsoever was stated in the said order as to why the petitioner was asked to stop work. No notice was issued and no opportunity of hearing was afforded. According to the petitioner, the action was taken on the basis of a circular issued by the State Government on November 20, 2002. When the petitioner approached the Additional Collector, Pun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(Bom) 181

Cases Referred (2)