The central legal point established in the judgment is the misapplication of legal provisions, excessive exercise of powers, and the violation of guidelines issued under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

JUDGMENT :

S.P. Deshmukh, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally, by consent.

2. The petitions question propriety, legality and validity of order dated 06-06-2020 passed by respondent No. 2 invoking section 2 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, section 33[1](b)(g)(1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and sections 155 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, restraining sand transport from Nandurbar district border or through the district, directing transport from other routes. Such restraint is to be effective in the territory of Nandurbar district until further orders.

3. Petitioners including members of Shiv Vahtuk Sena, Nasik-a union of truck owners, inter alia, ply their vehicles from adjacent Gujarat state to Maharashtra availing of shortest and convenient route available for transportation passing through Nandurbar district. It is their case that sand is being transported from roads in Nandurbar district for supply to development activities including government projects without any interruption from a very long time.

4. Petitioners contend that business of petitioners and members of the union had come to a grinding halt during the earlier subsisting lockdowns before 06-06-2020, truncating source of income for the truck owners, drivers, employees and the members of the union, making their life difficult, the source of livelihood having been cut off. Due to the same, not only livelihood is affected but also other aspects of their life had been drastically affected. It has caused a huge set-back in all respects to their life, posing threat and danger to their survival.

5. It is additionally being referred to that as the monsoon is setting in, sand excavation would become difficult further deteriorating the situation.

6. Mr. C.R. Thorat and Mr. J.D. Khairnar, counsel for petitioners, respectively, contend that singling out only sand transport and assuming that spread of COVID-19 is due to sand truck transport and can be checked and controlled only by cutting off of sand truck traffic through Nandurbar district is not at all proper and has been proved to so, as spread of pandemic in Nandurbar district while it was in green zone, after stoppage of the sand truck traffic, could not be checked and contained. Despite stopping of transportation of sand, epidemic is growing in Nandurbar district. Thus, the basic assumption entertained while issuing impugned order stands razed to the ground.

7. Counsel for petitioners contend that sand is not available and/or its excavation has been banned in the State of Maharashtra and, as such, sand is forced to be procured from outside the State. Only sand transporters are banned in Nandurbar district whereas rest of the goods transport continues to take place through Nandurbar district. The absolute stoppage of sand transport in Nandurbar district, is unreasonable and arbitrary.

8. The counsel submit, it is not proper to consider that sand truck drivers and transporters are not following the instructions issued by the Government from time to time about wearing of face mask, keeping social distance and use of sanitizers etc. Many people in other avocations have been in-fact affected by Corona virus while the sand truck business people have not been affected to such an extent. Thus, the assumption is beside the facts and is a figment of imagination. Petitioners are duly following the instructions.

9. Apart from aforesaid, it is submitted that such an absolute embargo has not been placed by other authorities in border districts on sand transport.

10. It is being particularly submitted on behalf of petitioners that the provisions which are sought to be invoked, have no application in the present case, rather are not relatable to the prevailing situation and power pursuant to those, could not have been exercised at all by respondent No. 2.

11. It is contended that respondent No. 2 would not be able to exercise powers under section 33(b)(g)(1) of the Maharasht