Case Note & Summary
The matter involves a Public Interest Litigation (PIL No. 78 of 2017) and two writ petitions (WP No. 10311 of 2017 and WP No. 11435 of 2017) filed before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. The petitioners challenged the validity of clauses 3 and 6 of a Government Resolution (GR) dated 04.05.2017 issued by the Water Resources Department of the Maharashtra Government. This GR laid down a policy for desilting sand and mud from major dams in Maharashtra, outlining the process for tendering, allotment, and disposal of extracted material. The petitioners, who included individuals engaged in agriculture, social work, and businesses involved in excavation of minerals and sand, contended that the new GR was arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to an earlier policy framed by the Revenue and Forest Department on 09.09.2014. That earlier policy had prescribed a one-year contract period, mandatory fixation of upset price, requirement of environmental clearance, and obtaining no-objection certificates before auction. The petitioners argued that the 2017 GR bypassed these safeguards, particularly by failing to fix an upset price, allotting contracts for an excessively long period of 15 years, and adopting a marking system in tender evaluation that allegedly favoured a specific cooperative society, M/s Mahalaxmi Industrial Manufacturing Cooperative Society Ltd. They alleged that this society had previously been granted direct work without tender in 2012, which was later quashed, and that the new policy was designed to benefit it once again. The petitioners also contended that environmental clearance was mandatory, citing Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2012) 4 SCC 629, and that the GR violated the principle of public good by creating a monopoly and causing potential loss to the state exchequer. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and various irrigation development corporations, were represented by senior advocates. The court heard extensive arguments and reserved judgment on 12.03.2018. The judgment was pronounced on 04.05.2018. However, the provided text only includes the factual background, parties' submissions, and arguments up to paragraph 12, ending abruptly. The court's analysis, reasoning, and final decision are not included in the excerpt. Therefore, the outcome of the petitions and the fate of the challenged GR clauses remain unknown based on the text supplied.
Issue of Consideration
Whether clauses 3 and 6 of Government Resolution dated 04.05.2017 are arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to previous policy requiring environmental clearance and upset price.
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (05) 4
Public Interest Litigation No. 78 of 2017, Writ Petition No. 10311 of 2017, Writ Petition No. 11435 of 2017
S. V. Gangapurwala, A. M. Dhavale
R. N. Dhorde, V. R. Dhorde, V. D. Hon, Ashwin V. Hon, Hemant U. Dhage, V. J. Dixit, A. B. Girase, P. M. Shah, Umakant K. Patil, A. V. Anturkar
Pravin S/o Rangnath Shirke, Prakash S/o Machindra Patil, Shree Swami Samarth Enterprises (Proprietor Adesh Bhujangrao Nagode), Sunil S/o Shivajirao Darekar, M/s Om Sai Sand Suppliers (Proprietor Ganpat S/o Namdeo Parkale)
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Public Interest Litigation and Writ Petitions challenging Government Resolution on desilting policy.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners seek quashing of clauses 3 and 6 of GR dated 04.05.2017, and directions to follow previous GR dated 09.09.2014 for desilting work.
Filing Reason
Petitioners allege that the GR dated 04.05.2017 is arbitrary, lacks environmental clearance, does not fix upset price, grants 15-year contract creating monopoly, and the marking system favours a particular cooperative society.
Previous Decisions
Earlier PIL No. 143 of 2012 was disposed with direction to follow GR dated 09.09.2014; interim orders passed; direct allotment to cooperative society quashed by Minister.
Issues
Whether clauses 3 and 6 of Government Resolution dated 04.05.2017 are arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Whether environmental clearance is mandatory for desilting operations.
Whether the marking system in the GR unfairly favours a cooperative society.
Whether the long contract period of 15 years is arbitrary.
Whether the Water Resources Department can issue a GR superseding the Revenue and Forest Department's earlier GR without court permission.
Submissions/Arguments
The tender did not fix an upset price, causing potential loss to the state exchequer.
Allotting a contract for 15 years was arbitrary and created a monopoly.
The marking system reserved 15 marks for cooperative societies, making it discriminatory and tailored to favour M/s Mahalaxmi Cooperative Society.
Environmental clearance, as mandated by judicial precedent and earlier GR, was not obtained.
The Water Resources Department lacked authority to supersede the Revenue and Forest Department's GR dated 09.09.2014, especially without court permission after the PIL disposal order.
The experience criteria arbitrarily favoured the same cooperative society that had previously received direct work order in 2012.
The action was a colourable exercise of power and mala fide, designed to benefit a specific party.
Judgment Excerpts
The marking system adopted in the said Government Resolution is arbitrary and irrational.
Environmental clearance is not obtained.
The tender is allotted for a long duration of fifteen years.
No upset price is fixed deliberately and thereby huge loss would be caused to the State exchequer.
Procedural History
Initially, direct work order was given to M/s Mahalaxmi Industrial Manufacturing Cooperative Society in 2012 without tender. PIL No. 143 of 2012 filed, status quo ordered, then Minister quashed allotment. On 09.09.2014, Revenue and Forest Department framed policy for desilting with one-year contract, upset price, environmental clearance. In view of that policy, PIL disposed on 11.04.2016 with direction to follow that policy. Subsequently, on 04.05.2017, Water Resources Department issued new GR with different terms. Petitioners filed present PIL and writ petitions challenging clauses 3 and 6.
