Dismissed

Jitendra Naryan Kulkarni through Gpa Dilip Bapurao Dhat v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC23 Apr 2015WP/3626/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought directions to continue sand excavation post-license expiry and to quash auction proceedings. The bench rejected the petition, holding that no entitlement exists after the allotted period and holding the request devoid of substance.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected; all pending Civil Applications were disposed of.

Jitendra Naryan Kulkarni through Gpa Dilip Bapurao Dhat Vs State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

wp 3626.15.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3626 OF 2015

¶5

Jitendra S/o Narayan Kulkarni

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Mrs. M.A .Kulkarni advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.G. Karlekar, AGP for Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & V.K. JADHAV, JJ Dated : 23^rd April, 2015.

¶13

PER COURT :-

¶14

1 The petitioner is praying for issuance of directions to respondents to allow him to excavate sand to the extent of 2364 brass from the suit site. A writ of certiorari is also requested for quashing of proceedings of auction initiated on 30.3.2015 for the year 2014-2015.

¶15

2 The petitioner was a successful bidder during the preauction process conducted in 2013 and was also allotted a sand spot for the purpose of excavation of the sand for the period 1.10.2012 to 30.9.2013. During continuance of operation of excavation of the sand, petitioner was penalized by the respondent authorities by imposing fine to the extent of

¶16

{2} wp 3626.15.odt

¶17

Rs.1,03,41,000/-. The petitioner tendered an appeal challenging the imposition of fine by the revenue authorities. The appeal tendered by the petitioner to the Additional Commissioner came to be allowed and the matter is remanded back for reconsideration to the Sub-divisional Officer. Petitioner contends that, since he has not completed the duration for which the sand spot was allotted, he is entitled to continue with excavation of sand until he exhausts permitted quantity to the extend of 2364 brass.

¶18

3 The argument advanced by the petitioner is contrary to the Policy framed by the State Government in respect of allotment of sand spot. The petitioner was granted a license for a limited period i.e. from 1.10.2012 to 30.9.2013 in respect of excavation of sand. Petitioner did not have any entitlement after completion of the aforesaid period.

¶19

4 In view of above, the request made by the petitioner in the instant petition does not deserve consideration. Writ Petition is devoid of substance and stands rejected. In view of dismissal of the petition, all the pending Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed of.

¶20

(V.K. JADHAV, J)

¶21

vbd

Jitendra Naryan Kulkarni through Gpa Dilip Bapurao Dhat v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Naryan Kulkarni through Gpa Dilip Bapurao Dhat v. State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Bharat Maruti Adawale Vs the Union of India and Others

Radhesham Kakumal Chetwani Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sudhir Chandrakant Fattepurkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Sureshchandra Vishwasrao Holkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Balasaheb Sambhaji Khillare and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Laxman Tulshiram Pawar, Lrs Chandrakant and Others Vs Amrutrao Shankarrao Deshmukh and Others