Khemraj Rahangdale vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Heard Mr. Dhenge, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Thakare, learned Addl GP for respondents/State and perused record of the case.

A prayer in this petition is regarding quashing of orders dated 24.7.2025 and 1.10.2025, passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, respectively. A further prayer is made to direct respondents to allow the petitioner to continue his excavation work at depot, as per terms and conditions of the agreement. Vide order dated 24.7.2025, the Collector, Bhandara has extended the period for distributing – selling of sand stock. By way of said order, it was further directed, that in case, it is found that sand policy dated 16.2.2024 is violated, security amount would be forfeited. The order further says that after lapse of one month as stated above, the petitioner will have no claim to continue the sand depot. So far as impugned order dated 1.10.2025 is concerned, on perusal of it, it can be said that same is not the order but in fact, is a communication addressed by the petitioner to Collector, Bhandara, by which a request is made to permit the petitioner to excavate sand from 1.10.2025, since according to him, the excavation activities were not carried out as per policy of the Government from 1.6.2025 till 30.9.2025. The petitioner, who was granted permission to start excavation by respondent No. 2 on 26.5.2023, has challenged the aforesaid communications. It is pertinent to mention here that since the terms and conditions of the agreement were breached, the order dated 24.7.2025 came to be passed. At this stage, it is necessary to consider the observations made by respondent Collector in the order, which are reproduced below:

The aforesaid observations would clearly reveal that it was the petitioner, who has given the undertaking/affidavit to sell the stock of sand. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner has argued that the said undertaking was obtained from him under pressure of respondent Collector.

We have gone through record of the case. We, prima facie, do not find any merit in the submission of the petitioner that he was pressurized by the respondent authorities, since no material is brought to our notice in that regard. Even otherwise, whether the pressure was mounted or not would be a question which will have to be tested by leading evidence. There is one more aspect that in pleadings made in the petition, more particularly, at page 18 of the petition, it is stated that in order to avoid extreme financial burden, the petitioner gave the undertaking. We can say that two different theories are advanced by the petitioner.

So far as challenge raised by the petitioner to the order dated 1.10.2025 is concerned, suffice it to say that it is not the order but the communication which has been addressed by the petitioner himself to the authorities. Hence, the said communication/request letter cannot be decided while exercising the powers under judicial review.

That being so, since several disputed facts are involved, we are not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition is dismissed.