Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
R.D. Dhanuka, S.G. Mehare, JJ.
Bapu Shankar Dighe & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Public Interest Litigation No. 25 of 2019 Along With Writ Petition No. 3180 of 2021
Decided On : 10-06-2022
PIL - Extension of Time for Excavation of Sand - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Section 258 - Government Resolution dated 25th October 2010 - The court quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 27th August 2014, 18th January 2017 and 9th April 2018 passed by the learned Minister (Revenue) and directed the respondents authorities to recover amount of Rs.1,74,00,636/- along with interest from the respondent no.7 in view of the order dated 13th July 2011 passed by the respondent no.4. The court also dismissed the Writ Petition No.3180 of 2021.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners in Public Interest Litigation No.25 of 2019 prayed for writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 27th August 2014, 18th January 2017 and 9th April 2018 passed by the learned Minister (Revenue) and for an order and direction that the respondents authorities be directed to recover amount of Rs.1,74,00,636/- along with interest from the respondent no.7 in view of the order dated 13th July 2011 passed by the respondent no.4. The petitioners have also prayed for writ of mandamus for restoration of the order dated 13th July 2011 passed by the respondent no.4 and for an order and direction to recover the penalty to the tune of Rs.1,74,00,000/- from the respondent no.7 imposed upon him in terms of the order dated 13th July 2011 passed by the respondent no.4. The petitioner in writ petition and the respondent no.7 in the Public Interest Litigation No.25 of 2019 has filed the Writ Petition No.3180 of 2021 inter alia praying for a declaration that the order dated 21st September 2020 issued by the Deputy Secretary of Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law and also prayed for writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 6th January 2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in R.T. S. Appeal No. 496 of 2020.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders granting extension of time for lifting sand were illegal, without authority of law, and without jurisdiction. The court also found that the subsequent orders passed by the authorities which were impugned in the Writ Petition No.3180 of 2021 were justified and thus no interference with the impugned order in the writ petition was warranted. The court allowed PIL No.25 of 2019 and dismissed Writ Petition No.3180 of 2021.
Issues: The issues before the court were whether the learned Minister could have granted extension for permission to excavate sand in favour of the respondent no.7 without any proceedings filed by the respondent no.7 before the learned Minister, and whether the learned Minister could have issued a corrigendum to the permission granted for excavation of sand when such relief was specifically rejected by the Collector and the appeal filed by the respondent no.7 against the said order before the Commissioner was unconditionally withdrawn.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rights and remedies of the parties against the specific orders were specifically provided under Clause 17 of the Government Resolution dated 25th October 2010, and the remedy under Section 258 of the MLR Code could not have been invoked for seeking review of the orders passed by the State Government for any of its or his predecessors in office. The court also held that the impugned orders were ex facie without jurisdiction, without authority of law, contrary to and in the teeth of Government Resolution dated 25th October 2010 and thus deserved to be quashed and set aside.
Final Decision: The court allowed PIL No.25 of 2019 and dismissed Writ Petition No.3180 of 2021. The court directed the State Government not to take any steps to recover any amount against the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3180 of 2021 for a period of eight weeks from the date of the judgment.
JUDGMENT
R.D.Dhanuka, J. - The petitioners in Public Interest Litigation No.25 of 2019 have prayed for writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 27th August 2014, 18th January 2017 and 9th April 2018 passed by the learned Minister (Revenue) and for an order and direction that the respondents authorities be directed to recover amount of Rs.1,74,00,636/- along with interest from the respondent no.7 in view of the order dated 13th July 2011 passed by the respondent no.4.
2. The petitioners have also prayed for writ of mandamus for restoration of the order dated 13th July 2011 passed by the respondent no.4 and for an order and direction to recover the penalty to the tune of Rs.1,74,00,000/- from the respondent no.7 imposed upon him in terms of the order dated 13th July 2011 passed by the respondent no.4.
3. The petitioner in writ petition and the respondent no.7 in the Public Interest Litigation No.25 of 2019 has filed the Writ Petition No.3180 of 2021 inter alia praying for a declaration that the order dated 21st September 2020 issued by the Deputy Secretary of Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law and also prayed for writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 6th January 2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in R.T. S. Appeal No. 496 of 2020.
4. By consent of parties, both the proceedings were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
5. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose for deciding these proceedings are as under :-
6. The petitioner who is the respondent no. 7 in the PIL is described as the respondent no.7 in latter part of this judgment and the petitioners in PIL are referred to as the petitioners in this judgment.
7. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is the agriculturist and is local resident of village Dhanore and his agricultural lands are situated on the opposite bank of Pravara river where the respondent no.7 has done illegal excavation of land which has adverse effect on the water table around the lands of the petitioner. The petitioner no.2 is a permanent resident of Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar and also a social worker and agriculturist.
8. Some time in the year 2011, the State Government invited a tender for lifting of sand in village Hanumantgaon, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar. By an order dated 28th March 2011, the respondent no.7 was allotted the said tender for his highest bid of Rs.1,10,00,000/- against the Government price of Rs.98,20,000/- subject to the terms and conditions contained in the Government Resolution dated 25th October 2010. The duration of the said tender was upto 31st July 2011.
9. It is the case of the petitioners that the said tender was accepted for lifting of 20000 brass sand. First permit for lifting 1000 brass sand was granted in favour of the respondent no.7. The respondent no.6 conducted inspection of the spot and if was found that against the permit of 1000 brass, the respondent no.7 has illegally lifted sand to the extent of 3836 brass i.e. much above the permit granted in his favour.
10. On 16th May 2011, the respondent no.6 passed an order imposing penalty of Rs.1,74,00,000/- for illegal excavation of sand. An appeal preferred by the respondent no.7 against the said order was dismissed by the respondent no.5 by an order dated 31st March 2012. The said order was confirmed by all the revenue authorities in the proceedings filed by the respondent no.7.
11. On the basis of the report forwarded by the respondent no.6, the respondent no.4 passed an order dated 13th July 2011 thereby cancelling the tender allotted in favour of the respondent no.7 vide order dated 28th March 2011. The respondent no.6 issued direction for initiating appropriate steps for recovery of the fine in view of the order dated 16th May 2011. The respondent no.7 filed an appeal impugning the said order dated 13th Ju
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impugned orders granting extension of time for lifting sand were illegal, without authority of law, and without jurisdiction, and thus des....
The State Government could not have granted permission to the respondent no.3 Corporation to initiate the revision application after expiry of 55 years mechanically and that also without application ....
The main legal point established is the requirement for administrative actions to adhere to principles of natural justice and fairness, ensuring that decisions are made after considering all relevant....
The State Government does not have the power to review its own orders unless such power is specifically conferred by statute. The State Government cannot exercise its power of review after a long del....
Tender - State Government may, either suo moto at any time or on an application made within ninety days from date of communication of the order, call for examine record relating to any order passed o....
Excavation of ordinary earth for construction purposes did not attract levy of royalty and penalty under the provisions of Section 48(7) of the M.L.R. Code, 1966, especially when the excavated earth ....
Cognizance of offences under the MMDR Act requires a complaint from an authorized person; without it, proceedings cannot be sustained.
The burden to establish illegal mining operations and fiscal charges lies upon the authorities, and any ambiguity in penal provisions should be resolved in favor of the person subjected to penalty.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
