Allowed

Sanjiv Babanrao Bhor and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary Revenue and Forest Deptt Mantralaya Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Mar 2012PIL/88/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the PIL challenging an auction notice for a sand guard. The court held that the respondents failed to follow the Government resolution dated 25.10.2010 regarding the submission of proposals and environmental assessment, and thus quashed the notice.

What did the court decide?

The auction notice dated 19.11.2011 was quashed and set aside insofar as it pertained to the sand guard.

Sanjiv Babanrao Bhor and Anr. Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

PIL 88/11

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.88/2011

¶6

Sanjiv Babanrao Bhor and another V/s The State & others.

¶7

|
Office Notes, Office
||_________________
| |---|---| |Memoranda of Coram,
|
appearances, Court's
||
Court's or Judge's orders
| |orders or directions
||| |and Registrar's orders
|||

¶8

Shri Niteen V. Gaware, Advocate for petitioners.

¶9

Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 6.

¶10

CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶11

Date: 28.03.2012

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith

¶14

and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

The petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the auction notice issued by the respondent no.3 - Collector on

¶16

PIL 88/11

¶17

¶18

19.11.2011 on the ground that the said auction notice is in contravention of the Government resolution dated 25.10.2012.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the Gram Sabha has consistently passed three resolutions opposing the auction, the sand guard in auction has been granted without taking into consideration the resolutions. He further submits that the perusal of the Government resolution dated 25.10.2010 especially paragraph no.4 would reveal that the proposal for carrying out the survey by the GSDA has to be tendered by the Collector to the GSDA authorities in April / May and the GSDA authorities are required to submit their report within a period of one month thereafter. He further submits that in clause (D) of paragraph no.4, an environmental assessment study is also required to be done.

¶20

The perusal of the record would reveal that the proposal has been sent by the

¶21

PIL 88/11

¶22

¶23

Collector in the month of August and the survey by the GSDA authorities has been done in the month of September.

¶24

We are, therefore, of the considered view that the respondents have not followed the mandate of the Government resolution dated 25.10.2010. We are, therefore, inclined to allow the writ petition.

¶25

Rule is, therefore, made absolute by quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 19.11.2011 insofar as the sand guard, which is subject matter of the present petition is concerned. However, we make it clear that for the auction in the next year, the respondents would be at liberty to auction the sand guard in question, provided they strictly follow the provisions of the Government resolution dated 25.10.2010, specifically the one in paragraph no.4, which requires the proposal to be submitted to the GSDA authorities in April / May and which requires the GSDA authorities to submit their report within a period of one month from the receipt

¶26

PIL 88/11

¶27

¶28

thereof, as also study of the environmental assessment.

¶29

(Sunil P. Deshmukh, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) Dt/- 28.03.2012 ndk/c283129

Sanjiv Babanrao Bhor and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary Revenue and Forest Deptt Mantralaya Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjiv Babanrao Bhor and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary Revenue and Forest Deptt Mantralaya Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhakar v. Damble Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax and 3 Ors.

Shri. B. D. Kadam (Retired Judge) Vs Accountant General (a and E), Maharashtra State, Mumbai and Ors.

Mumbai Taximen Sangathan and 3 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Prashant Dadasaheb Sadaphal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sudam S/O Yadavrao Sahare Vs Nagpur Improvement Trust Thr. Its Chairman

Venkatesh Dhondo Kulkarni Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Noshir J. Vajifdar and Ors. Vs Joint Charity Commissioner, Worli and Ors.

The Maharashtra Krushak Hitwardhak Sanghatna, Muktainagar, through Prakash Gambhir Mahajan and Ors. Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Power, and Ors.

Vasantika Markasrao Ghule Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ankush Nivrutti Kachave Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dadasaheb Bhagirth Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Proposed Sahyadrai Rahera Tanwadi Macchyavaisai Sah Sanstha Maryadit Rahera Dist Jalna Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr Ganesh Gangadhar Kalyankar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sahebrao Keshavrao Ambhure, Died Thr. L.Rs. Pralhad and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.