Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ankush Kashinath Mhaske, was declared the successful bidder for sand excavation in five villages on the banks of river Kukadi in November 2015. After deposit of offset price and execution of agreement, sand-ghats were allotted on 7 January 2016, and the petitioner was directed to take possession through the Tahsildar. The petitioner had earlier, on 4 January 2016, written to the Collector about newspaper reports regarding opposition from villagers and requested that the situation be examined. Subsequently, the petitioner sought permission to use a suction pump and Poclain machine, citing a letter from the Senior Scientist, Groundwater Survey and Development, Pune, dated 11 January 2016, which noted 8 to 10 meters of water in the river. However, the petitioner could not excavate sand, leading to a claim for refund of the amount paid for unexcavated sand. By order dated 4 April 2022, Respondent No.3, the Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, rejected the refund request. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The court issued rule, made it returnable forthwith, and heard the matter finally with consent. The visible portion of the judgment does not contain the final decision or reasoning of the court.
Issue of Consideration
WRIT PETITION NO. 10222 OF 2022
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (04) 135
Writ Petition No. 10222 of 2022
A.S. Chandurkar, M.M. Sathaye
The State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department; The Hon'ble Minister, Revenue and Forest Department; The Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department; The Collector, Pune; The Tahsildar, Junnar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of refund for un-excavated sand
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 04.04.2022 by Respondent No.3 and refund of amount deposited for un-excavated sand
Filing Reason
The Respondent No.3, Deputy Secretary, rejected the Petitioner's request for refund of amount paid for sand that could not be excavated due to opposition from villagers and site conditions
Judgment Excerpts
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5/State waives service. Heard finally by consent. (Para 1)
by this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 04.04.2022 issued by the Respondent No.3, by which the request of the Petitioner for refund of amount of un-excavated sand, is rejected. (Para 2)
In November 2015, the Petitioner was declared as successful bidder for sand excavation in 5 villages on banks of river Kukadi. (Para 3.1)
Procedural History
The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 04.04.2022. The High Court issued rule, made it returnable forthwith, and heard the matter finally by consent on 30 April 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
