1 WP5749-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5749 OF 2025 (M/S. MOHAN ENTERPRISES, THR. ITS PROPRIETOR MOHAN LILHARE...VS..THE STATE OF MAH. THR. ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE AND FOREST DEPARTMENT & ANR.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Akshay Naik, Sr. Adv. a/b Shri S.K. Bhandarkar, Adv. for Petitioner. Shri N.S.Rao, A.G.P. for Respondent/State. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 24, 2025. 1. Heard. 2. After floating of the tender for allotment of Sand Ghats, on finding the petitioner successful bidder Letter of Intent was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Collector on 05/06/2023 wherein terms and conditions of such Letter of Intent were mentioned. One of the terms and conditions was to comply with all the terms and conditions of the agreement, failure to which the contract will be cancelled without pre-intimation. Taking recourse to Clause (7) of the Letter of Intent (Page 27) the Collector cancelled the contract of the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2,31,984/-. Thus, the said order, cancelling the contract and directing to pay the above referred amount vide order dated 11/09/2025 (Page 21), is the subject matter of challenge of this petition. 2025:BHC-NAG:15086-DB 2 WP5749-2025 3. The cancellation of the contract was for violating mainly two conditions i.e. (2) and (5), which read thus: ^^2½ izR;sd okGw Msikse/;s 24@7 Nk;kfp=.k gks.;klkBh CCTV clfo.;kr ;kosr- Weighbridge ¼otudkVs½ P;k fBdk.kh o okGw Msiksps fufj{k.k gksbZy v’kk fBdk.kh CCTV clfo.;kr ;kosr- 3½ o 4½ --- 5½ dkgh vifjgk;Z dkj.kkeqGs okGw Msiks ;sFkhy fo|qr iwjoBk [kaMhr >kyk rjh Msikrhy dkedktkoj ifj.kke gksm u;s Eg.kwu vko’;d R;k {kersps tujsVj ¼Generator½ clfo.;kph tckcnkjh fufonk /kkjdkph jkghy-** 6 rs 10--- 11½ okGw Msikse/;s izkIr gks.kkÚ;k okGw lkB~;ke/;s [kkyhy e;kZnsi;Zar ?kV vuqKs; jkghy: miyC/k lkBk (esfVªd Vu) VDdsokjh 5000 i;Zar lkBk 05 VDds 5001 & 10]000i;Zar lkBk 04 VDds 10]001&20]0000i;Zar lkBk 03 VDds 20]001 is{kk tkLr lkBk 01 VDds” (Page 34) 4. Shri Naik, learned Senior Advocate has pointed out that the stock which was found in the Sand Depot of the petitioner was 9340 Brass instead of 9726.64 as per the report dated 10/06/2025, as such there was a short fall of 386.64 brass sand. It is submitted that since the sand stock was in between 5001 to 10000 brass, permissible short fall as per the terms and conditions of the agreement is 4%. Thus, according to him, if 4% short fall of 9340 brass is calculated, it would be within permissible limit. 5. Since we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the shortfall is within the permissible limits, the petitioner cannot be 3 WP5749-2025 directed to pay amount of Rs.2,31,984/-, nor can the contract be cancelled on that ground. Accordingly, we hold in favour of the petitioner that the cancellation of the contract by the Collector on the ground of shortfall of sand and further direction to pay 2,31,984/-, is bad in ₹ law. 6. Another ground is non-availability of 24x7 CCTV footage. It is the case of the petitioner that because of frequent disruption in the electricity supply such 24x7 CCTV footage could not be made available. 7. Admittedly, maintaining 24×7 CCTV footage is one of the conditions of the agreement. It is also an admitted fact that the agreement specifically provides that, in the event of disruption in electricity supply, a generator shall be installed to ensure uninterrupted 24×7 CCTV surveillance. The petitioner, in his explanation, has admitted that such 24×7 CCTV footage was not provided and has sought to justify the same on the ground that there was disruption in the electricity supply on various occasions. 8. In view of such admission, we are of the opinion that there is a breach of condition ‘to have 24x7 CCTV footage and the condition to install generator’ to avoid any disruption in the recording, in case there occurs breaks in the electricity supply due to load-shedding. 4 WP5749-2025 9. No such generator was installed by the petitioner at his Sand Depot nor an alternate arrangement to install CCTV cameras operated on Solar Panels is made. CCTV cameras can be installed with solar panels (Solar- powered CCTV systems), and they are especially useful where grid electricity is unavailable or unreliable. 10. In the circumstances, we do not find any error committed by the Collector in cancelling the contract on the ground of violation of condition Nos. 2 and 5 of the Agreement. 11. In that view of the matter, we pass the following order: i) The impugned order dated 11/09/2025 passed by the Collector, Bhandara is upheld to the extent that the contract stands cancelled in view of Clause (7) of the terms and conditions of the Letter of Intent, on account of non-supply of 24×7 CCTV footage and non-installation of generator, as required under the conditions of the Concession Agreement. ii) The impugned order dated 11/09/2025 passed by the Collector, Bhandara is quashed and set aside to the extent that it directs the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,31,984/- towards the alleged shortfall of 386.64 brass of sand. 5 WP5749-2025 The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J) (ANIL S.KILOR,J) RRaut..