B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. In these three writ petitions arising out of Nagpur, Bhandara and Gondia Districts challenge by petitioners is to notices for auction published on 5th March, 2018. In Writ Petition No.1637/2018, 25 sand ghats at Nagpur were being auctioned and in Writ Petition No.1764/2018 about 21 sand ghats at Bhandara are being auctioned and in Writ Petition No.1818/2018 challenged the auction of 18 sand ghats in Gondia District.

2. This Court has, in these matters, while issuing notices, permitted auction process to go on, restrained respondents – State and respective Collectors from issuing any work orders or allotment orders.

3. The challenge is being considered in the light of earlier Judgment of this Court dated 02/02/2018 in Writ Petition No. 6147/2017.

4. Looking to the nature of controversy and at the request of parties, we have heard them finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith.

5. Shri Bhangde, learned senior counsel with Shri Khajanchi, learned counsel in Writ Petition No. 1818/2018 and Shri Bhandarkar, learned counsel in other two matters have assisted the Court on behalf of petitioners. Shri Rao, learned A.G.P. and Shri Kukday, learned counsel have opposed the arguments.

6. Though lengthy arguments have been advanced, considering the nature of controversy and orders warranted, we find it proper to narrate the contentions of petitioners jointly as under :

(a) The impact of Judgment dated 02/02/2018 in Writ Petition No. 6147/2017 has been lost site of.

(b) After considering the previous policies and orders of Hon'ble Apex Court as also this Court, the State Government has come up with more comprehensive and full proof policy on 03/01/2018. The impugned action is not in furtherance of said policy.

(c) The mining plan, for the purposes, though shows to be approved, it appears to be too casual and mechanical as mining plans in such large number that too after 02/02/2018, could not have been prepared and evaluated in short time of about one month.

(d) The rainfall in the region was much below average and hence, fresh survey of sand ghats ought to have been undertaken after 02/02/2018, that too as per new policy dated 03/01/2018. That exercise has not been undertaken.

(e) Papers produced before this Court to demonstrate compliance with and fresh surveys do not inspire confidence as the same are not signed by all officers who must remain present on spot at the time of survey.

(f) Survey reports are mostly a copy paste affair of alleged earlier surveys which are not available after 02/02/2018 judgment.

(g) The Gram Sabhas have been given a decisive role in new policy and resolutions of those Gram Sabhas after 03.01.2018/02.02.2018 giving no objection for putting sand ghats to auction do not exist.

(h) It is also claimed that allegations of mala fides made against petitioners are without any merit as no material in support thereof has been made available.

(i) In absence of proper mining plan and replenishment measures, excavation of sand from sand ghats, is not permissible.

7. Learned AGP has opposed the above contentions. He submits that a new policy evolved on 03/01/2018 clearly reveals that it cannot apply in year 20172018 that for period from 1st October, 2017 till 30th September, 2018. Auction being held now therefore has to be & is in fact as per earlier policy evolved on 12th March, 2013.

8. As sand ghats have necessary environmental clearance, the issues like absence of survey or defective survey or then absence of mining plan become insignificant.

9. Respective Counsel for the respondents add if petitioners are aggrieved by environmental clearance, they have to challenge the same by filing appropriate proceeding before the National Green Tribunal.

10. Our attention is also invited to pleadings in reply to urge that the petitioners, particularly husband of one of the petitioners namely; Sau. Punam Katekhaye in Writ Petition No. 1764/2018 i.e. one Vilas Katekhaye is himself in sand business and