Writ petition challenging the auction of sand rights due to conflicting Gramsabha resolutions. The Court found no sufficient ground for extraordinary jurisdiction interference given the changing stand of the Gramsabha.
Petition stands rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P. No.118/2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 118 OF 2012
Sandeep Bhausaheb Dangat & ors. ..PETITIONERS VERSUS
The State of Mah. & ors.
..RESPONDENTS
Mr P.S. Dighe, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr V.D. Godbharle, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 4; Mr R.R. Karpe, Advocate for respondent no.5
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 14th February, 2012
PER COURT :
The Gramsabha has gone on changing stand one after another. In the first Gramsabha, the Gramsabha opposed to hold the auction for giving rights for excavation of the sand. In the second Gramsabha, which was held in the presence of Naib Tahsildar on 12.8.2011, the Gramsabha passed a resolution thereby giving no objection for auction of sand. Again, third Gramsabha is purportedly held on 27.9.2011.
2 W.P. No.118/2012
(SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.)
(B.R. GAVAI, J.)
amj/wp118.12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this Court could exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere in the Gramsabha's fluctuating stance regarding sand auction.
Sandeep Bhausaheb Dangat & ors.
The State of Mah. & ors.
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH
B.R. GAVAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
