M/S. Super Trading Co. Thr. Its Proprietor, Vivek Madhavrao Gaidhani Vs State of Maha., in the Ministry of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai, Thr. Addl. Chief Secretary and Ors.

After floating of the tender for allotment of Sand Ghats, on finding the petitioner successful bidder Letter of Intent was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Collector wherein terms and conditions of such Letter of Intent were mentioned. Consequently, an agreement was also entered into. The Letter

¶30

2 wp7800.2025.

¶31

of Intent and Agreement clearly states that the terms and conditions of the Agreement and Letter are entered into in the light of Government Resolution dated 19.4.2024 and Corrigendum dated 20.4.2023 and 21.4.2023.

¶32

One of the terms and conditions was to comply with all the terms and conditions of the agreement, failure to which the contract will be cancelled without pre-intimation. Since the petitioner, according to the respondents, did not submit CCTV footage, which was the serious matter and had resulted into violation of Sand Policy dated 16.2.2024 and order by the High Court dated 14.9.2014, action was taken by the respondents. The recourse was also taken to conditions of the order issued to the petitioner and thereafter, the said order, cancelling the contract and forfeiting the security amount vide order dated 10/09/2025, is the subject matter of challenge of this petition.

¶33

The cancellation of the contract was for violating mainly non-submission of CCTV footage. Perusal of the terms and conditions of which relates to CCTV footage, read thus:

¶34

^^2½ izR;sd okGw Msikse/;s 24@7 Nk;kfp=.k gks.;klkBh CCTV clfo.;kr ;kosr- Weighbridge ¼otudkVs½ P;k fBdk.kh o okGw Msiksps fufj{k.k gksbZy v’kk fBdk.kh CCTV clfo.;kr ;kosr-

¶35

3½ o 4½ ---

¶36

5½ dkgh vifjgk;Z dkj.kkeqGs okGw Msiks ;sFkhy fo|qr iwjoBk [kaMhr >kyk rjh Msikrhy dkedktkoj ifj.kke gksm u; s Eg.kwu vko’;d R;k {kersp s tujsVj ¼Generator½ clfo.;kph tckcnkjh fufonk /kkjdkph jkghy-**

¶37

Another ground is non-availability of 24x7 CCTV footage. It is the case of the petitioner that because of frequent load-shedding in the electricity supply such 24x7 CCTV

¶38

3 wp7800.2025.

¶39

footage could not be made available. According to Mr. Kukday, learned counsel for the petitioner, he had already informed the concerned authorities by making detailed application that due to flood in the river, the stock of sand had washed away and therefore, the Panchanama be conducted. He submits that the said Letter was submitted much prior before passing of the order and even according to that Letter, Panchanama was conducted. The said Panchanama shows that definite opinion regarding washing of Sand Stock cannot be given. According to Mr. Kukday, even opportunity of being heard was not given. He further submits that before taking action, the material relied upon while passing the order should have been provided to the petitioner. He therefore, relied upon order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 147/201/8 and 4717/2017 and submitted that the respondent authorities in those cases, more particularly, the Collector was directed to supply the material on the basis whereof the show cause notice was referred. According to him, those cases were also pertaining to cancellation of lease for excavation of sand.

¶40

We have gone through the record of the case. The sand policy and Government Resolution clearly admittedly, speaks about maintaining 24×7 CCTV footage, which is one of the conditions of the agreement. It is also an admitted fact that the agreement specifically provides that, in the event of disruption in electricity supply, a generator shall be installed to ensure uninterrupted 24×7 CCTV surveillance. The petitioner, in his explanation, though has stated that he has supplied such 24×7 CCTV footage but nothing is brought on record to substantiate the stand. A simple document showing acknowledgment

¶41

4 wp7800.2025.

¶42

would have suffice the purpose. What has been stated is that the petitioner had supplied the CCTV footage.

¶43

It is to be noted that the Panchanama which was drawn clearly shows that no definite opinion can be given about washing away of Sand Stock. The contention of the petitioner regarding washing away of the Sand would then be a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction.

¶44

So far as applicability about the orders passed in the matters referred supra, we would like to state that a show cause notice was duly replied by giving an explanation in which a request was never made to provide the necessary material.

¶45

So far as reliance placed by the counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition 5292/2015 decided by this Court is concerned, it was observed in the aforesaid case that the quasi judicial authorities are expected to assign the reasons for arriving at the conclusion, though, the reasons may be short and brief. The aforesaid legal position advanced by the Hon’ble Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court, cannot be disputed but fact remains that perusal of order impugned would reveal that reasons are given

¶46

In the circumstances, in view of such admission, we are of the opinion that there is a breach of condition ‘to have 24x7 CCTV footage and to provide such CCTV supply of energy by installing generator’ to avoid any disruption in the recording, in case there occurs breaks in the electricity supply due to loadshedding. It further appears that no such generator was installed by the petitioner at his Sand Depot nor an alternate

¶47

5 wp7800.2025.

¶48

arrangement to install CCTV cameras operated on Solar Panels is made. CCTV cameras can be installed with solar panels (Solar-powered CCTV systems), and they are especially useful where grid electricity is unavailable or unreliable. So far as argument advanced by the petitioner that principles of natural justice were not complied is concerned, it is to be stated that before taking the action, show cause notice was issued, reply was called for and finally, after considering the reply, the decision has been taken.

¶49

Since no case is made out, petitions are dismissed.

¶50

(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J) (ANIL S.KILOR,J)

¶51

RRaut..

M/S. Super Trading Co. Thr. Its Proprietor, Vivek Madhavrao Gaidhani v. State of Maha., in the Ministry of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai, Thr. Addl. Chief Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Super Trading Co. Thr. Its Proprietor, Vivek Madhavrao Gaidhani v. State of Maha., in the Ministry of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai, Thr. Addl. Chief Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipali Kapil Narwade and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Public Health, Mumbai and Ors.

M/S Sun Sun Roadways, Nagarwadi, Yavatmal Thr. Its Proprietor, Dharmavir Satkumar Gupta Vs Union of India, Thr. Ministry for Railways, New Delhi and Others

Nilesh Prabhakar Wankhade Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Prin. Secretary, Tribal Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Akash S/O Ramesh More vs the State of Maha. Thr. Its Sec. Dept. of Irrigation, Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Ashish Shrikrushnarao Gohatre vs Satish Mugal, Education (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Amravati and Others

Aryavarta Mining, Kolkata, Thr. Constituted Attorney, Debashis Sinha and Ors. vs Western Coalfields Limited, Coal Estate, Nagpur, Thr. Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.