IMPORTANT POINT: The policy of auction was consistent with the position of law that the State largesse is required to be distributed by non-arbitrary method consistent with Article 14 and that such non-arbitrary method is the process of auction.

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

1. Both the above petitions involve similar facts and identical issue. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. In Special Civil Application No. 7124 of 2016, the challenge is directed against order dated 15th January, 2016 whereby the third respondent-the Revisional Authority dismissed the Revision Application R-256. The said was revision under Rule 65 of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 2010 which arose out of and was directed against order dated 13th March, 2011 by the Collector, Bharuch. The second petition being Special Civil Application No. 7125 of 2016 was also in Revision Application No. R-235 dismissing the same and upholding the order of the Collector, Bharuch.

3. The facts in both the case go parallel. The respective petitioners in two petitions had applied for grant of quarry lease for excavation of mineral sand. The petitioner of the first petition applied for lease in respect of land survey No. 176 admeasuring 10 Acres in the riverbed of Narmada at Village Pora, Taluka Jhagadia, Bharuch. The second petitioner of the other petition applied for the same purpose in respect of land bearing survey No. 159 at same village. The applications dated 07th July, 2011 in both the cases came to be rejected by the Collector. They were rejected on similar grounds and considerations.

3.1 The Collector recorded that the lands under demand were included in the block for the purpose of auction. It was recorded that opinion of the Mamlatdar was against granting the said land for excavation and Resolution was passed in the meeting of Gramsabha; the fees paid by the petitioner concerned was refunded and the case was closed. It is from the said orders passed in two cases, the Revision Applications as above were preferred and came to be dismissed by the Revisional Authority-the third respondent herein.

3.2 The Revisional Authority while rejecting the Revision Applications endorsed to the grounds mentioned by the Collector in his order, and additionally observed that the application of the petitioner for quarry lease was made after 31st March, 2010; as it was made after the said date, found the Revisional Authority, Resolution dated 13th December, 2013 of the Mines & Minerals Department of the Government of Gujarat would apply, which provides for disposal of applications for grant of quarry leases by holding public auction. It contemplates that all the applications which are post 31st March, 2010 would be dealt with by mode of holding auction.

4. Learned advocate assailed the impugned order that the ground stated by the Revisional Authority with reference to the said Resolution may not sustain. It was submitted that the Revisional Authority could not have supplied such reason so as to travel beyond the order of the Collector. For this purpose, reliance was placed in decision in Rashmi Metaliks Limited vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, (2013) 10 SCC 95 about Resolution dated 13th December, 2013 it was submitted that the language of Rule 69 of the Rules did not permit issuance of such Resolution and adoption of such method for disposal of quarry leases. It was submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioners in respect of raising a defence in relation to the said Resolution dated 13th December, 2013. It was next contended that the area demanded by the petitioner fell under the trible zone, therefore different provisions would apply and the respondent authorities could not resort to or could not be allowed to advert to the process of auction for disposal. Learned advocate for the petitioner made reference of Article 243-N of the Constitution to garner support for his submission. It was submitted that blocks have not been declared to include the land in question for subjecting it auction process. On the basis of all these submissions, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that the order of the Revisional Authority is required to be quashed and petitions