SANDIP NARAYAN SALUNKHEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. DEPT. OF REVENUE AND FOREST MAHA. STATE AND ORS.

2026:BHC-KOL:8448-DB

                                                                         906-WP-12334-2025.doc


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 12334 OF 2025
               Sandip Narayan Salunkhe                                     ...Petitioner
                         Versus
               The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Dept. Of Revenue And ...Respondents
               Forest Maha. State And Ors.
                                                ——————
               Mr. Manoj Patil a/w Ms. Ankita Mali i/b Mr. Shubham Dhenge, for the Petitioner.
               Ms. Tejas Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                                ——————
                                                  Coram :     SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
                                                              NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
                                                  Date      : SEPTEMBER 02, 2026
               P. C. :

               1.        Heard.

               2.        By the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing and setting

               aside of the impugned correspondence cum order dated 13 th

               September, 2024 issued by the Under Secretary of Revenue and Forest

               Department, Maharashtra State and further direction for refund of the

               bid amount along with interest.

               3.        Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Petitioner was

               successful auction bidder for sand excavation of Plot No. 1 in Gat No.

               579 situated at village Padli, Taluka Satara, District Satara whereby the

               Petitioner was permitted to excavate sand of 643 brass from the

               auctioned plot. It is pleaded that due to problems and difficulties faced

               by the Petitioner, which was not due to his default, the same could not


               Arya Chavan                         1 of 6
                                                    906-WP-12334-2025.doc


be excavated. Placing reliance on the Government Resolutions (“GR”) of

3rd January, 2018 and 3 rd September, 2019, it is pleaded that an

appropriate grievance was lodged with the Collector seeking permission

for excavating the sand by suction pump, to which there is no response.

It is specifically contended that the auctioned plot is underwater of

Urmodi river and without use of suction pump, sand excavation is not

possible. As there was a valid reason for non-excavation of sand and in

accordance with GR in place, a report was submitted by the Collector to

the State Government, which led to passing of the impugned order

dated 13th September, 2024, by which the request for refund of the

auction amount came to be rejected.

4.      Learned counsel for the Petitioner would point out that the

auction was conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions set

out in the GR of 12th March, 2013. He would further point out that the

GR makes provision for eventualities where sand excavation cannot be

done despite the auction, and casts a duty upon the Collector to

conduct necessary inquiry and bring the facts to the notice of the State

Government. He submits that immediately after noticing the fact that

without suction pump, the sand cannot be excavated, on 6 th January,

2017, a grievance was lodged with the Collector seeking permission for

excavation by suction pump. He submits that there was no response and

the Petitioners thereafter filed an application before the Hon’ble


Arya Chavan                     2 of 6
                                                       906-WP-12334-2025.doc


Revenue Minister on 3rd August, 2023, who directed that the request be

examined in accordance with the procedure and submit the same. He

would submit that the report of the Collector dated 8 th July, 2024 is in

favour of the Petitioner and the report was forwarded to the Under

Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department. He submits that in view of

the order of the Hon'ble Minister, the report, in fact, should have been

placed before the Hon'ble Minister, however, Under Secretary has, at his

own level, rejected the Petitioner's application for refund of the bid

amount.

5.      Per contra, learned AGP would support the impugned order and

would submit that the Under Secretary has rightly considered that the

auction was conducted in accordance with the terms, which places the

entire responsibility on the Petitioner in order to ascertain whether it is

possible to excavate the sand. She would further submit that the

impugned order clearly records that during the entire period of auction,

the auctioned plot was in possession of the Petitioner, and therefore,

there is no question of any refund being claimed by the Petitioner. She

would submit that as the Under Secretary has rightly taken into

consideration the relevant factors, no interference is warranted.

6.      We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

7.      The auction of the plot for excavation of sand was under the

terms and conditions stated in the GR dated 12th March, 2013. Clause


Arya Chavan                      3 of 6
                                                      906-WP-12334-2025.doc


14(c) of the said GR provides that, in the event of any obstruction to the

Petitioner in carrying out sand excavation or due to natural calamities or

due to any reason, which is beyond the control of successful auction

bidder, grievance is to be made to the concerned Collector, who shall in

turn, conduct an inquiry in the same and bring the facts to the notice of

the Government, who shall then take appropriate decision.

8.      There is no dispute about the fact that the auction was conducted

on 8th December, 2016, and immediately on 6th January, 2017, in

accordance with the GR dated 12th March, 2013, the Petitioner raised a

grievance with the Collector stating that due to the auctioned plot

being underwater, it is necessary for excavation to be carried out by use

of suction pump and sought permission for the same. There was no

response to the said grievance by the Collector and neither any

permission was given for use of the suction pump. In terms of the GR

dated 12th March, 2013, where such grievance is raised before the

Collector, duty is cast upon the Collector to conduct necessary inquiry

and bring the facts to the notice of the State Government. It appears

that as the Petitioner was not able to excavate sand due to absence of

permission for excavation by suction pump, and neither the bid amount

was refunded, the Petitioner approached the Hon'ble Minister on 3 rd

August, 2023, who directed the Revenue Department to conduct

necessary inquiry and place a report for necessary action. Pursuant to


Arya Chavan                      4 of 6
                                                       906-WP-12334-2025.doc


the same, on 30th November, 2023, the Under Secretary of the Revenue

and Forest Department addressed a communication to the Collector

seeking the necessary report in respect of the Petitioner's grievance.

Accordingly, report was submitted by the Collector on 8 th July, 2024,

placing the necessary facts on record and resolving that as the

Petitioner was unable to excavate the sand for the purpose of refund of

the bid amount, the proposal be submitted to the State Government.

On 13th September, 2024, the Under Secretary passed a cryptic one-

page order rejecting the Petitioner's claim for refund on the ground

that for the entire auction period, the plot was in the possession of the

Petitioner, and therefore, he is not entitled to refund.

9.      Perusal of the impugned communication would indicate that

there is no consideration of report dated 8th July, 2024 sent by the

Collector to the Under Secretary. As it was a question of refund of the

Petitioner's bid amount, it was necessary to give an opportunity of

hearing to the Petitioner, which has not been done in the present case.

The impugned order rejects the Petitioner's request without noticing

the GR dated 12th March, 2013, the grievance raised by the Petitioner

with the Collector immediately on 6 th January, 2017 and the inaction on

part of the Collector to comply with Clause 14(c) of the GR, which

enjoins upon the Collector to immediately inquire into the said position

and place the facts before the State Government. As it is not


Arya Chavan                       5 of 6
                                                     906-WP-12334-2025.doc


demonstrated that any excavation has been carried out by the

Petitioner, the mere fact that during the auction term, the plot was in

possession of the Petitioner cannot be the solitary ground for rejection

of the Petitioner's claim.

10.     One of the contentions of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is

that by reason of the noting of the Hon'ble Minister, the report was to

be placed by the Hon'ble Minister. We find that the noting says that the

grievance be examined and placed for necessary action. Considering the

noting, the proposal was to be placed before the Hon’ble Minister,

which has not been done in the present case.

11.     In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered view

that as the impugned communication does not take into consideration

the factors observed in the present order, the impugned communication

is clearly unsustainable and is hereby quashed and set aside. The report

of the Collector along with the necessary documents be considered

afresh by the Hon'ble Minister and after giving an opportunity of

hearing to the Petitioner, the Petitioner's claim be decided in

accordance with law. The Petition is allowed in the above terms.

12.     Applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand

disposed of.



 [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]                    [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]


Arya Chavan                      6 of 6