Disposed

Prashant Jijabrao Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC12 Mar 2018PIL/1/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the auction of sand spots as violative of Article 14 and NGT orders regarding suction pump bans. The court found respondent no.3 filed an affidavit undertaking to manually excavate without machines. Consequently, the hearing was deemed unnecessary and the PIL was disposed of by making the rule absolute.

What did the court decide?

The amount deposited by the petitioner was partially refunded to him and partially paid to the Library, Advocates' Association of Bombay High Court at Aurangabad; the PIL stands disposed of.

Prashant Jijabrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

01.2018PIL

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.1 OF 2018

¶5

Prashant s/o Jijabrao Patil,
Age: 36 years, Occu: Business,
R/o. Gurukrupa Bhawan,
Near Durga Hospital, Shirur Naka
Parisar, Amalner, Tq. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon
PAN No.BIZPP7560G
Aadhar Card No. 684894311459
Mobile : 7972876566
E-mail : [email protected]

¶6

 PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶9

2. The Additional Collector, Nandurbar, Dist. Nandurbar.

¶10

3. Om Sairam Building Material Supplier, Through its Proprietor Bhagwat s/o Bhikan Patil, Age: 50 years, Occu: Business, R/o. At post Utran, Tq. Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon. RESPONDENTS

¶11

...
Mr.P.S.Dighe, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.A.B.Girase, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1
and 2/State

¶12

Mr.Paresh B.Patil, Advocate for respondent
no.3.

¶13

...

¶14

01.2018PIL

¶15

¶16

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &

¶17

 S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.

¶18

Date: 12.03.2018.

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

1]Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

¶21

forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.

¶22

2]This Public Interest Litigation is
filed with the following prayers:

¶23

B. Hold and declare that the auction of sand spots pursuant to the E-tender notice dated 05.12.2017 published in Daily Lokmat dated 07.12.2017 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in contravention to the order passed by the National Green Tribunal, at Pune and New Delhi and therefore is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶24

C. Issue writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or

¶25

01.2018PIL

¶26

¶27

direction in nature of writ of prohibition thereby prohibiting the respondents, their officers and subordinates from taking any further steps for allotment of sand spots pursuant to the E-tender notice dated 05.12.2017 published in Daily Lokmat dated 07.12.2017 including handing over possession to the successful bidders and for that purpose issue necessary orders.

¶28

3]It is the case of the petitioner

¶29

that respondent no.2 Additional Collector, Nandurbar, has issued E-auction notice dated 05.12.2017, which is published in daily ‘ Lokmat’ dated 07.12.2017, for auction of

¶30

four sand spots in Nandurbar and Shahada
Taluka from the Tapi River bed. In pursuance
to the said auction notice, the auction was

¶31

scheduled on 20.12.2017, and out of total
four sand spots mentioned in the notice, in
only two sand spots, the bids have been
accepted i.e. the sand spot at Savalda,

¶32

01.2018PIL

¶33

¶34

Taluka Nandurbar and Sajde-2, Taluka Shahada

¶35

as per the information of the petitioner. As
far as the sand spots at Sajde-1 and Biladi
are concerned, the fresh auction process is
likely to be conducted by the respondent

¶36

authorities. It is further the case of the
petitioner that when the petitioner came to

¶37

know about the said auction process,
immediately the petitioner collected the
necessary documents, and the orders passed by

¶38

the National Green Tribunal, Pune. Upon
perusal of the tender terms and conditions,
particularly, terms and conditions in respect

¶39

of the environment, it has been noted that
the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi has
passed the orders in Original Application
No.363/2015, 366/2015, 367/2015 and 368/2015

¶40

on 19.04.2017 that the State Government has

¶41

been restrained from giving permission for

¶42

use of suction pumps for excavation of sand.
It has been further noted that the sand

¶43

01.2018PIL

¶44

¶45

cannot be excavated with the help of suction
pumps, and the order of National Green
Tribunal needs to be followed.

¶46

4]Learned counsel appearing for the

¶47

petitioner submits that considering the terms
and conditions of auction notice, it has been
clearly stated that suction pumps will not be
permitted to be used for excavation of sand,
in view of the order passed by the National
Green Tribunal. It is submitted that the
respondent authorities were aware of the fact
that the sand spots at village Sajde-1,
Sajde-2 and Biladi in Tapi river bed are
covered by water and the sand can be
excavated only with the help of suction pumps
or other machinery.

¶48

5]Pursuant to the notices issued to

¶49

the respondents, respondent no.3 has filed

¶50

affidavit in reply. It is stated in the said
affidavit in reply that respondent no.3 is

¶51

01.2018PIL

¶52

¶53

the successful bidder, however, the work

¶54

order is not yet issued in his favour.
Respondent no.3 has deposited 20% amount as

¶55

per the condition of E-tender notice. As per
condition no.15 of the auction notice dated
05.12.2017, there is ban for excavating of
sand by way of suction pumps, and by using of

¶56

machineries without prior permission of the
Green Tribunal, and in the present matter,
yet no any kind of work order is alloted to
respondent no.3 in regards to sand auction
spot at village Sajde-2, Taluka Shahada. At
present, the said spot is under water covered

¶57

and yet neither work order is issued, nor
respondent no.3 has started excavation of the
sand. In para 10 of the affidavit-in-reply,

¶58

it is stated that respondent no.3 is ready to
furnish an undertaking that he will not
excavate the sands from the sand spot at
village Sajde-2, Taluka Shahada through
machine or suction pumps unless it becomes

¶59

01.2018PIL

¶60

¶61

dry. Respondent no.3 is ready to abide by the
orders passed by the Green Tribunal.
Respondent no.3 filed an undertaking in the
form of affidavit. In para 3 and 4 of the
said affidavit-undertaking, it is stated

¶62

thus:

¶63

3. Deponent is already given undertaking in his earlier affidavit in reply in para No.10 and 11 that, he will not excavation of auction sand spot at village Sajde-2 Tq. Shahada through Machine or suction Pumps unless its becomes dry. further undertakes that, after dry of auction sand spot at village Sajde-2 Tq. Shahada, deponent will excavation sand from auction spot through labours only and deponent is ready to obey orders of Hon’ble Green Tribunals as mentioned in auction notice and take care of environmental loss and damages at the time of excavating of sand from auction sand spot.

¶64

01.2018PIL

¶65

¶66

4. I, undertake to the extent

¶67

of condition No. 12 of the Government Resolution dated 03/01/2018 that, after allotment of action sand spot at village Sajde-2 Tq. Shahada, I will excavate sand manually. I further undertake that I will not use Poklen or JCB Machine for excavation of sand from auction sand belt and similarly I will not use JCB machine or Poklen or any other machine for loading sand in the vehicles. Deponent is ready to obey the condition No. 12 of Government resolution dated 03/01/2018 at the time excavation of sand of auction sand belt.

¶68

6]Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner fairly states that since

¶69

respondent no.3 has filed undertaking, the
purpose of filing this Public Interest
Litigation has been satisfied.

¶70

01.2018PIL

¶71

¶72

7]Keeping in view the discussion in
theforegoingparagraphs,further
continuation of hearing of this PIL is not
necessary.

¶73

8]Needless to observe that respondent
no.3 can go ahead in terms of agreement for
excavating the sand, however, keeping in view
the statement made in the affidavit, and also
further undertaking in the form of affidavit.

¶74

9]Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner graciously submit that from the
amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited in the
registry by the petitioner, the petitioner is
willing to give Rs.12,500/- to the Library,
Advocates’ Association of Bombay High Court,
at Aurangabad.

¶75

10]In that view of the matter, the
amount of Rs.12,500/- be paid to the Library,
Advocates’ Association of Bombay High Court,

¶76

01.2018PIL

¶77

¶78

at Aurangabad, and remaining amount of
Rs.12,500/- be refunded to the petitioner.

¶79

11]Rule is made absolute in above
terms. The PIL stands disposed of
accordingly.

¶80

 [S.M.GAVHANE] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶81

DDC

Prashant Jijabrao Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Jijabrao Patil v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Laxmanrao Dak and Others Vs the Union of India and Others

Taj Ahmad Raja Vs Government of Maharashtra, Planning Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Haji Aslam Khan S/O Haji Amiruddin Vs State of Maha. through the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Planning, Mumbai and Others

Rahul Chandrakant Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anil Prabhakar Tadkalkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nagar Parishad Gharfala Vadh Virodhi Kruti Samiti Kurundwad through Shri. Sunil Balwant Kurundwde Vs the Chief Secreatary the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sharad Baliram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Anr.

Shri. Mahaveer Digambar Aware Vs the Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra State, Pune and Ors.

Sudhir Nathu Raktate Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rahul Bhimrao Dehade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prashant Shyam Sapkale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kiran Jagnnath Nikam and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Marathwada Gramin Bank Nanded and Ors. Vs Nagorao Kamaji Bamne

Dr. Pundalik Vaijinathrao Chate Vs the Sec. the State of Mah, Sec. and Higher Sec. Education Dept. and Ors.