PRATAP B NALAGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE inaction on the part of the respective Additional Collectors to extend the period originally allowed to the petitioners to extract sand from river beds under the terms and conditions of public auctions transmuted into contract is a cause for invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Having satisfied with the prima facie challenges, we issued "rule" returnable forthwith. Respondents waived service. By consent petitions were taken up for hearing. Since the common questions of law and fact arise in all the petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment, though the parties are different.

(3.) AT the outset, the learned A. G. P. appearing for the state raised a preliminary objection that the disputes are governed by the terms of contract, therefore, the writ petitions are not maintainable. In his submissions, the disputes are governed by the terms of non-statutory contracts, hence writ jurisdiction of this Court is not available to the petitioners.