Dismissed

Baban Gihininath Keche v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Feb 2018WP/6056/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash an order cancelling his sand excavation permission. The Single Judge held that the dispute involved contractual facts and was not suitable for writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was directed to approach the civil court for a suit. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no order as to costs; petitioner to approach civil court for relief regarding excavation.

Baban Gihininath Keche Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

WP 6056-2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6056 OF 2015

¶4

Baban Gihininath Keche

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

V/s

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. P.B. Shah for the petitioner. Mr. B.V. Samant, AGP for the State.

¶10

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 22^nd FEBRUARY 2018

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

We have heard both sides and perused the writ petition and the annexures thereto.

¶14

Mr. Shah appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was all throughout given to understand that he can enter into a contract with the respondent nos.1 and 3 to 5 so that he can obtain the rights to excavate sand and other minor minerals from the bed of Ujjani Dam.

¶15

In terms of the application made by the petitioner, he relied upon the letter dated 12^th January 2004 and thereafter a deposit which had been made so as to commence and complete the work of excavation. The petitioner relies upon the agreement dated

1 of 4

ABS

WP 6056-2015

12^th June 2004 and would submit that the period stipulated therein was to expire on 31^st December 2007. The petitioner relying upon all this was expecting that he would be able to excavate the above material in terms of the same. However, the area and the surroundings were not made conducive for such excavation. Thereafter the petitioner was informed that he should obtain a fresh permission which also was obtained by him on 16^th February 2009. The petitioner made a deposit in terms of the demand raised on him. Even pursuant to this deposit and such compliances to be made by the petitioner, he was not allowed to excavate the sand. This was because of some order which was passed on 9^th December 2009. That gave no opportunity to the petitioner to contest the claim. Thereafter a No Objection Certificate was issued by the 2^nd respondent Corporation, but to the surprise of the petitioner on 3^rd March 2012 the permission granted to him itself was cancelled. Once that permission was cancelled and without any hearing and principles of natural justice being followed that the petitioner made a representation on 30^th March 2015 for recalling of the same and to permit excavation of sand.

¶20

It is in these circumstances that the petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the order dated 3^rd March 2012 with a further direction that his representation be decided and he be permitted to excavate the sand, mud etc. from the river bed in terms of the initial order dated 28^th October 2009.

2 of 4

ABS

WP 6056-2015

The present petition has been filed in this Court on 5^th April 2015.

¶25

From a reading of the petition and the annexures thereto, it is evident that the petitioner made a representation on 30^th March 2015 seeking to recall the order of 3^rd March 2012. Further, there are disputed questions of fact. Whether the petitioner was indeed excavating the material, for how long and whether the petitioner was affected adversely by intervention of the State and the cancellation of permission are the issues raised. These are purely contractual disputes. The remedy to resolve the contractual disputes ordinarily is by way of a suit or arbitration in the event there is an arbitration agreement. All contractual claims, where there is a clear dispute about the compliance with the terms of the contract or otherwise, are not always capable of being resolved in writ jurisdiction. The present case is of such nature. We find from the narration of the facts by the petitioner himself that several disputed questions arise for our determination. They cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner is free to bring a suit in the competent civil court and claim all the reliefs as are permissible in law including compensation in terms of money. When such a suit is filed, we have no doubt in our mind that irrespective of disinclination of this Court to entertain this writ petition or the stand of the respondent, the suit will be decided by the competent civil court uninfluenced by

3 of 4

ABS

WP 6056-2015

these actions or developments. While we dismiss the petition because it involves disputed questions of fact, we clarify that as far as the contractual disputes and claims of the petitioner are concerned, we have not expressed any opinion either way. All such contentions can be raised in the proceedings which the petitioner desires to institute or initiate including bringing a suit in the competent civil court.

¶30

The writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶31

(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶32

4 of 4

¶33

ABS

Baban Gihininath Keche v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baban Gihininath Keche v. State of Maharashtra 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

Eros Theatre and Restaurant Private Limited Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Mulchand Vadalchand Mehta and Pavanben Mulchand Mehta Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Indu Bhushan Proprietor of Messers, Acyuta Global Vs the Union of India through the Secretary, and Ors.

Shivaji Nagar Co. Operative Housing Society (Pro) Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Others

Godavari R. Kukreja and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Laxmibai Eknath Mhaskar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.