AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1.Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2.This Public Interest Litigation is filed with the following prayers:
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.
C.Issue writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or 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.
3.It is the case of the petitioner 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 four sand spots in Nandurbar and Shahada Taluka from the Tapi River bed. In pursuance to the said
auction notice, the auction was 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 Taluka Nandurbar and Sajde-2, Taluka Shahada 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 authorities. It is further the case
of the petitioner that when the petitioner came to know about the said auction process, immediately the petitioner collected the necessary documents,
and the orders passed by the National Green Tribunal, Pune. Upon perusal of the tender terms and conditions, particularly, terms and conditions in
respect 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 on 19.04.2017 that the State Government has been restrained from giving permission for use of suction pumps for
excavation of sand. It has been further noted that the sand cannot be excavated with the help of suction pumps, and the order of National Green
Tribunal needs to be followed.
4.Learned counsel appearing for the 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.
5.Pursuant to the notices issued to the respondents, respondent no.3 has filed affidavit in reply. It is stated in the said affidavit in reply that respondent
no.3 is the successful bidder, however, the work order is not yet issued in his favour. Respondent no.3 has deposited 20% amount as 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 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 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, 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 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 thus:
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.
4.I, undertake to the extent 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.
6.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly states that since respondent no.3 has filed undertaking, the purpose of filing this Public Interest
Litigation has been satisfied.
7.Keeping in view the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, further continuation of hearing of this PIL is not necessary.
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.
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.
In that view of the matter, the amount of Rs.12,500/- be paid to the Library, Advocates' Association of Bombay High Court, 01.2018PIL at
Aurangabad, and remaining amount of Rs.12,500/- be refunded to the petitioner.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. The PIL stands disposed of accordingly.