Mauli Cement and Building Materials Suppliers Mantha Thr Its Proprietor Kailas Devidas Borade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

¶1

(1)

¶2

1011-wp-329-2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

1011 WRIT PETITION NO.329 OF 2021

¶5

MAULI CEMENT AND BUILDING ATERIALS SUPPLIERS MANTHA
THR ITS PROPRIETOR KAILAS DEVIDAS BORADE

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS..RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. Devdatt P. Palodkar, Advocate for the
Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. A. R. Kale, AGP for Respondents-State.

¶11

… CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 05^th FEBRUARY, 2021.

¶12

PER COURT:-

¶13

1.We have heard Mr. Palodkar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P.

¶14

2.Mr. Palodkar, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that auction of sand spots is
regulated by Government Resolution dated
03.09.2019. The upset price of the sand spots is
to be fixed as per the terms of the Government
Resolution dated 03.09.2019. The prelude to the
Government Resolution dated 03.09.2019 is order
passed by the Division Bench at Nagpur in Public
Interest Litigation No.110/2018 dated 07.12.2018.
According to the learned counsel if a river flows
from various districts, then the upset price for
auction of sand spot has to be the same. The
Collectors of the various districts have to hold a
joint meeting to fix the upset price. However, the

¶15

(2) 1011-wp-329-2021

¶16

tender notice issued by the Collectors of various
districts would show that the upset price has been
fixed distinctly. In Aurangabad the upset price is
fixed at Rs.1092/- per brass, in Jalna the same is
fixed at Rs.2168/- per brass and in Parbhani it is
fixed at Rs.2639/- per brass. The price at
Buldhana is fixed at Rs.1276/- per brass. The
action of fixing the upset price in the tender
notice demonstrates non-application of mind by the
respondents and non-adherence to the Government
Resolution. Fixing of uniform upset price of sand
spot on one river flowing in different districts is
essential condition for issuing tender notice. It
maintains level playing field for the bidder and
also reduces concentrated excavation of sand in a
particular district. The learned counsel to
buttress his submissions relies on Clause 8 (C) of
the Government Resolution dated 03.09.2019.

¶17

3.Mr. Kale, learned A.G.P. for respondents
submits that the petitioner is misinterpreting the
Clauses of Government Resolution dated 03.09.2019.
If the sand spots in two districts are situated
jointly, then only the Collectors of the two
districts have to fix the upset price in
consultation and as per directions of the
Divisional Commissioner. The learned A.G.P.
further contends that in Buldhana district Dhamna,
Khadakpurna and Purna rivers flow, in Hingoli
district the rivers are Kayadhu and Purna and
rivers in auction notice of Parbhani are Godavari,

¶18

(3) 1011-wp-329-2021

¶19

Purna and Dudhna. Not a single sand spot in
Aurangabad district is the common / joint sand spot
in the river flow of adjacent district. There are
separate sand spots and as such independently the
upset prices are fixed by respondents in accordance
with Clause 8 (1)(A) of the Government Resolution
dated 03.09.2019. The petitioner has not given
details of rivers. Clause 8(C) of the Government
Resolution in question cannot be interpreted in a
manner the petitioner seeks to rely. The upset
price has been rightly fixed. Calculated on the
basis of 6% increase on the previous financial
years upset price multiplied by the available
quantity of sand in the said sand spot, as such,
there would be difference in the upset price in the
sand spot fixed at the different districts and
places.

¶20

4.We have considered the submissions
canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

5.The Government has laid guidelines under
its executive powers pursuant to the Government
Resolution dated 03.09.2019 fixing the upset price
for auction of sand spots. Clause 8(A) and (C) of
the said Government Resolution would be relevant.
Clause 8(A) permits the fixation of upset price by
enhancing 6% price to the one fixed last year.
Clause 8(C) provides that, if one river is flowing
in two or more districts and the two sand spots in
the different districts of the same river is to be
auctioned, then the Collectors of the said

¶22

(4) 1011-wp-329-2021

¶23

districts will in consultation with each other
fixed the upset price.

¶24

6.Clause 8(C) cannot be read independently
and dehors Clause 8(A). If Clause 8(C) is read
independently and as contended by the petitioner,
it would be rendering Clause 8(A)(ii) redundant.

¶25

7.It does not transpire that, the sand spots
referred to by the petitioner are the joint sand
spots on river flowing in the adjacent districts.
In absence of the same, it will not be possible to
accept the contentions of the petitioner. We do
not find that the procedure as contemplated in
Clause 8(A) in Government Resolution dated
03.09.2021 is flouted while fixing upset price.

¶26

8.The fixation of the upset price is the job
best left to the Authorities. The formula for
fixing the upset price is fixed and well provided
in Clause 8(A) of the Government Resolution dated
03.09.2019. The same it appears is being adhered
to.

¶27

9.In light of the above, the relief claimed
by the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶28

10.Writ Petition as such is disposed of. No
costs.

¶29

(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA)
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶30

Devendra/February-2021

Mauli Cement and Building Materials Suppliers Mantha Thr Its Proprietor Kailas Devidas Borade v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mauli Cement and Building Materials Suppliers Mantha Thr Its Proprietor Kailas Devidas Borade 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priora Water Solution Pvt. Ltd. Thr Its Director Revan Machindra Akhade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Roshanbai Ukha Tadvi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Suvarnamala Prakash Dudhate Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary and Others

Khushal Manoj Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Shubham Kishor Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohammad Abdul Moeed Mohammad Abdul Kari and Others Vs the Municipal Corporation through Its Municipal Commissioner and Another