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 Forest Maha. State And Ors. ...Respondents —————— 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 13th 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 2026:BHC-KOL:8448-DB 906-WP-12334-2025.doc be excavated. Placing reliance on the Government Resolutions (“GR”) of 3rd January, 2018 and 3rd 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 6th 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 8th 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 3rd 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 8th 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 6th 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