JUDGMENT : S.S. SHINDE, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This Petition is filed with the following prayers: “(B) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or directions or orders in like nature and the E-Tender Notice dated 15.12.2017 and further process to that effect to the extent of the Petitioner Village, may kindly be quashed and set aside. (C) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or directions or orders in like nature and the letter dated 02.01.2018 issued by the Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.6 for depositing the remaining amount, may kindly be quashed and set aside and may kindly restrain the Respondent No.3 from giving possession of the sand spot at petitioner village to the Respondent No.6.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, village Gandhari is situate on the bank of Godavari River in Ambad Taluka. The E-tender notice was issued on 15th December, 2017, by which the said village is listed for sand excavation. At the time of inserting the name of the said village in an auction/Etender of sand, the will of majority is not considered, and only to get the revenue, the petitioner’s village is included in the auction/ Etender. Gram Sabha has passed the resolution opposing the sand excavation from the river bed situate in the said village. It is specifically mentioned that, if such excavation of sand is taken place, it would create problems for drinking water and irrigation purposes, and majority of the persons, who are dependent upon the agricultural land, would also ultimately suffer. Gram Sabha was arranged on 25th October, 2017 and after discussion, the resolution was passed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invites our attention to the copy of the said Resolution (Exhibit-C/Page 35) and submits that, the Government of Maharashtra, after passing the order dated 18th April, 1998 in Writ Petition No.637 of 1997 and after considering that, there was a consistent flow of Writ Petitions and Public Interest Litigation filed by various Village Panchayat, Sugar Factories, Irrigation Societies and Cooperative Societies, had taken a policy decision and framed the scheme to deal with matters relating to auction of sand from the river bed. The said scheme was brought into force from 5th September, 2003 to deal with all matters concerning auction of sand and other ancillary and incidental issues arising therefrom. Thereafter, the said Government Resolution dated 5th September, 2003 is amended and Respondent No.2 – State has framed new policy for auction of the sand and excavation of the sand. Accordingly, the State of Maharashtra has issued new Government Resolution dated 25.10.2010, thereby framing new policy for auction of the sand. However, again the said policy is changed by introducing the recent Government Resolution dated 12th March, 2013. As per condition No.3, the recommendation of the Gram Sabha is made mandatory before auction of the sand of any particular village. However, as per Condition No.3(e) of the said Government Resolution dated 12th March, 2013, if Gram Sabha opposes for auction of sand spot, then the power is given to the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the objections and to take decision on it and to put said sand spot in auction or not. It is also stated that, officers of Ground Water Survey Department and other Officer should take part in the said meeting and to decide about recommendation for the auction of that sand spot. Here, it is to be considered that, if the powers are given to the Sub-Divisional Officer for final decision then there is no value of the Gram Sabha. 4. It is submitted that, the Government Officers are not respecting the feelings of the villagers and in the present case, ignoring the decision of the Gram Sabha, the sand spot is allotted in favour of Respondent No.6. It is submitted that, even the mandate of Government Resolution dated 12th March, 2013 has not been adhered to, while allotting such sand spot in favour of Respondent No.6. Learned counsel invites our attention to the contents of the Government Resolution, and submits that, before such sand spot is auctioned joint survey has to be carried out by (1) District Mining Officer, (2) Officer of the Department of Environment and (3) Senior Geologist, Ground Water Survey Department. He further submits that, the said Committee has to submit detail report to the Collector. The purpose of the aforesaid Committee and enquiry is that, the excavation of sand should not affect the water table, thereby resulting into reduction of productivity of crops in the villages, which are benefited because of the river water. He further submits that, the said Committee has to submit detail report to the Collector. The purpose of the aforesaid Committee and enquiry is that, the excavation of sand should not affect the water table, thereby resulting into reduction of productivity of crops in the villages, which are benefited because of the river water. Learned counsel also invites our attention to the provisions of Rule 39A, and submits that, the auction was in violation to Rule 39A of the aforementioned Rules. Learned counsel also invites our attention to the provisions of Article 243 of the Constitution of India, and submits that, in order to maintain the autonomy of the Village Panchayat wishes expressed by the villagers through Gram Sabha, need to be honoured before including the sand spots in the tender process. Learned counsel also invites our attention to the various documents placed on record, and by relying upon the pleadings in the Petition, annexures thereto and the averments in the rejoinder affidavit, submits that, the Petition deserves to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for Respondent No.3, relying upon the averments in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the said Respondent, made the following submissions : The auction of sand spot at village Gandhari has been conducted as per the Government Resolution dated 12th March, 2013. The Gram Panchayat is a group Gram Panchayat, consisting of villages Gandhari and Gouri. The sand spot at village Gouri has also been auctioned and the said sand spot is allotted to the highest bidder. The Resolution dated 5th January, 2018 shows that, the objection with respect to both sand spot Gouri and Gandhari, however, the Petition is filed only against the sand spot at village Gandhari. Before issuing E-tender dated 15th December, 2017, as per the Government Resolution dated 12th March, 2013, the information with respect to sand spot has been collected by the Collector. The concerned Tahsildar submitted report to the Collector on 28th June, 2017. The said report is submitted after preparing the Panchanama and map of the spot. After receipt of such proposal, the joint survey is conducted by the District Mining Officer and Junior Geologist of Ground Water Survey and Development Agency. The said report or survey is forwarded to the Collector. The said report is submitted after preparing the Panchanama and map of the spot. After receipt of such proposal, the joint survey is conducted by the District Mining Officer and Junior Geologist of Ground Water Survey and Development Agency. The said report or survey is forwarded to the Collector. In the present matter, the report is submitted by the Ground Water Survey and Development Agency and Mining Officer collectively on 13th September, 2017. It is submitted that, as per the Government Resolution dated 12th March, 2013, the meeting of Gram Sabha was called seeking permission to auction the sand spot, however, the Gram Sabha did not give its permission, and raised objection for granting permission as per the Resolution dated 25th October, 2017. The Sub-Divisional Officer considered the objection of the Gram Sabha and discarded the same. The SubDivisional Officer has considered that, there will be illegal excavation of sand and there will be loss of revenue to the State Government as well as it will not be benefited to the village. It is submitted that, before issuing the auction of sand spot as per the Notification dated 20th January, 2016, the environmental clearance has to be taken from the Committee consisting of District Collector of the District as a Chairman, Senior Most Divisional Forest Officer in the District as a member and expert member nominated by the Divisional Commissioner or Chief Conservator of the Forest as a member and the Sub-Divisional Officer of the District, as a member Secretary. The said committee has given environmental clearance for the village sand spot including sand spot in question on various conditions. It is submitted that, after obtaining the environmental clearance certificate, as stated above, the E-tender notice came to be published, and after following due procedure the sand spot came to be allotted to Respondent No.6. Learned A.G.P. invites our attention to the letter at Exhibit `E/Page 70 and submits that, by mistake the date has been mentioned on the said letter as 2nd January, 2018, however, actually it is issued on 3rd January, 2018. Furthermore, the corrigendum came to be issued on 25th January, 2018, correcting the date as 3rd January, 2018 instead of 2nd January, 2018. 6. It is further submitted that, the petitioner has not shown that the present sand spot will come within the scheduled area as required under law. Furthermore, the corrigendum came to be issued on 25th January, 2018, correcting the date as 3rd January, 2018 instead of 2nd January, 2018. 6. It is further submitted that, the petitioner has not shown that the present sand spot will come within the scheduled area as required under law. The Government Resolution dated 12th March, 2013 issued by Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra provides for an alternate remedy before the Grievance Committee. As per the clause 17 of the said Government Resolution, the petitioner can approach the said Committee. Respondent No.6 has deposited the amount of Rs.63,53,730/- with the Respondent Authorities. Learned A.G.P. therefore submits that, taking into consideration the fact that, already the sand spots are allotted in favour of Respondent No.6 in accordance with the Government policy, the Petition may not be entertained. 7. Learned Senior counsel Mr. Dixit instructed by Mr. Nagargoje, relying upon averments in the reply of Respondent No.6, submits that, there is no valid resolution authorizing the present petitioner to file the Petition on behalf of Gram Panchayat. The petitioner is adopting the pick and choose policy. Though the tender of two sand spots have been allotted, which come within the jurisdiction of the petitioner, still the Petition has been filed only in respect of the tender allotted in favour of Respondent No.6. The tender has been issued in favour of Respondent No.6, after following due process of law and keeping in view the provisions of Government Resolution dated 12th March, 2013. Learned Senior counsel invites our attention to the alleged resolution passed by Gram Sabha and submits that, it is signed only by 22 members. Learned Senior counsel also invites our attention to the fact that, the villagers and the Sarpanch i.e. Ramesh Sukhdeo Niware, who has filed the present Petition on behalf of Gram Panchayat, are involved in illegal transportation of sand. The number of tractor belongs to Sarpanch involved in illegal transportation of sand is having No.MH-21 D-4934. His son also involved in illegal excavation of transportation of sand. The tractor owned by him is of Mahindra Company having No.D-575, which is being used for illegal transportation of the sand. The number of tractor belongs to Sarpanch involved in illegal transportation of sand is having No.MH-21 D-4934. His son also involved in illegal excavation of transportation of sand. The tractor owned by him is of Mahindra Company having No.D-575, which is being used for illegal transportation of the sand. He invites our attention to the copies of number of documents to show that, the villagers of the said village are involved in illegal excavation of sand, and therefore, in order to enjoy the illegal excavation of sand, they are opposing to issue valid tender for excavation of the said sand, which is issued in favour of Respondent No.6. There was no valid reason to oppose the auction of the said sand spot in favour of Respondent No.6. The alleged resolution is signed by only 22 members. The Sub-Divisional Officer, after considering the said resolution, submitted the report to the Collector for conducting auction. It is submitted that, the petitioner – Village Panchayat objected both the spots, still the Petition has been filed questioning only one spot i.e. in village Gandhari, which itself shows the malafide intention on the part of the petitioner. It is submitted that, all steps/formalities of issuing tenders were completed relying upon the Government Resolution, and as a matter of fact, the auction has been held on 3rd January, 2018. It is submitted that, in the year 2013-2014, the petitioner Village Panchayat objected the auction of sand spot of Gouri/Gandhari. However, vide letter dated 18th November, 2013, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer has turned down the said objection and accordingly, the auction was held and the Tender was given to one Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Ahmed. The petitioner – Village Panchayat did not challenge the said auction. On the contrary, subsequently, by passing the Resolution dated 8th November, 2014, the petitioner – Village Panchayat gave its no objection for extension of the period, which was objected by them. Thus the said fact itself shows that, the petitioner – Village Panchayat is not coming with clean hands and the auction is being opposed for some ulterior motive. 8. It is submitted that, the auction has been held on 3rd January, 2018 and tender has already been issued. The upset price of sand spot at Gouri was at Rs.20,53,440/- and the bid price is at Rs.32,33,440/. 8. It is submitted that, the auction has been held on 3rd January, 2018 and tender has already been issued. The upset price of sand spot at Gouri was at Rs.20,53,440/- and the bid price is at Rs.32,33,440/. So far as the sand spot of Gandhari is concerned, the upset price was at Rs.27,53,530/-, whereas the bid offer given by present Respondent No.6 is at Rs.63,53,730/-. However, the petitioner – village Panchayat is questioning the spot allotted to Respondent No.6 for some ulterior motive. It is submitted that, by order dated 18th January, 2018, the Tender of Gouri spot has been allotted to Jay Industries. The said sand spots at village Gouri and village Gandhari are adjacent to each other and distance between these two spots is very less. It is submitted that, both the spots come under the jurisdiction of petitioner village panchayat and the petitioner village panchayat is the Group Gram Panchayat of Gouri and Gandhari. Beside it, by Resolution dated 25th October, 2017, the petitioner – Village Panchayat objected both the spots, still there is no challenge to other spot and the present Petition has been filed only questioning the spot at Gandhari. It is submitted that, as a result of illegal excavation of the sand by the villagers of the said village Gandhari, 104 crimes were registered against villagers for illegal excavation of sand. The fine has been imposed, which comes near about Rs. 1,04,00,000/-. It is submitted that, if the auction is not held then there will be illegal excavation of sand and the State exchequers will be deprived of from getting the revenue. Learned Senior counsel invites our attention to such several instances of illegal excavation of sand by the villagers. It is submitted that, pursuant to the allotment of tender, Respondent No.6 has already started excavation of the sand. Therefore, it is submitted that, the Petition may be rejected. 9. We have given careful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties. With their able assistance, we have perused the pleadings in the Petition, grounds taken therein and annexures thereto, reply filed by Respondent No.3, reply filed by Respondent No.6 and the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. 10. Upon careful perusal of the alleged resolution passed by the Gram Sabha, it appears that, the same is signed only by 22 villagers. With their able assistance, we have perused the pleadings in the Petition, grounds taken therein and annexures thereto, reply filed by Respondent No.3, reply filed by Respondent No.6 and the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. 10. Upon careful perusal of the alleged resolution passed by the Gram Sabha, it appears that, the same is signed only by 22 villagers. Therefore, we find considerable force in the submissions of learned Senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 that, such alleged resolution cannot be treated as valid. Apart from it, upon careful perusal of the Resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 8th November, 2014, it appears that, the Gram Panchayat resolved that, Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Ahmed should be allowed to excavate the sand. In case, the Gram Panchayat was really concern about the ecological imbalance or that, the water flow is reduced because of such excavation of sand, such resolution should not have been passed by the Gram Panchayat. Apart from it, upon careful perusal of the panchanama dated 17th December, 2014 at Page 155 of the compilation of Writ Petition, it appears that, the names of Ramesh Sukhdeo Niware and Bhausaheb Ramesh Niware are mentioned. Their tractor numbers are also mentioned. The said panchanama also shows that, said four tractors were seized while transporting the sand. Admittedly, the procedure adopted and tender allotted in favour of Respondent No.6 is governed by the Government Resolution dated 12th March, 2013. It appears from the reply filed by Respondent No.3 that, the procedure in the said Government Resolution has been scrupulously followed and thereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer has recommended to the Collector for auction of the said sand spots. 11. We have carefully perused the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 12th March, 2013 issued by the Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra. Clause No.3 of the said Resolution, which is relevant in the facts of this case, reads as under: “3- HINDI” 12. As per Clause 3(E) of the said Resolution, referred above, if opposition is recorded by Gramsabha for excavation of sand, it is mandatory to record reasons. Clause No.3 of the said Resolution, which is relevant in the facts of this case, reads as under: “3- HINDI” 12. As per Clause 3(E) of the said Resolution, referred above, if opposition is recorded by Gramsabha for excavation of sand, it is mandatory to record reasons. In that case, the Sub-Divisional Officer of concerned revenue circle is entitled to examine the validity of objections recorded by the Gramsabha and thereafter he is entitled to take the decision, whether to act upon the objections recorded by the Gramsabha or to proceed with the auction, if such objections are not sustainable. Thus discretion is given to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer whether to accept the objections raised by the Gramsabha and cancel the auction of sand, or to proceed with auction of the sand spot if, in his opinion, the objections are not sustainable. 13. In the present case, in the first place, the alleged Gramsabha resolution, which is signed only by 22 persons, is surrounded with suspicious circumstances. Secondly, prima facie it appears that, the villagers in past have indulged into illegal excavation of the sand. In the present case, the Petition is filed after auction of the sand spots. In that view of the matter, in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are unable to persuade ourselves to grant any relief to the petitioner. Hence the Petition stands rejected. Rule stands discharged accordingly. However, we make it clear that, in case petitioner wishes to avail of an alternate remedy, the rejection of this Petition shall not be construed as an impediment to the petitioner – village Panchayat, from availing of an alternate remedy before the Grievance Committee, as provided under Clause 17 of the Government Resolution dated 12th March, 2013 issued by Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai.