IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.
KANAKSINH @ KANUBHAI UDESINH CHAUHAN – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 6342 of 2022
Decided On : 10-10-2022
Natural Justice - Quarry Lease - Gujarat Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2017 - Rule 5(4), Rule 2(b), Rule 43 - The court quashed the action of the respondent authority of closing down online account of the petitioner for issuance of royalty passes, directed the release of the seized boat and equipment, and directed the petitioner to file a reply to the notice and the respondents to give sufficient opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before adjudicating the notice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's online account for issuance of royalty passes for a quarry lease was closed down without notice. The respondent authorities also seized the petitioner's boat and materials without registering an FIR within 45 days. The petitioner was issued a notice for lease cancellation without the required 60 days' notice period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent authority did not comply with Rule 5(4) of the Gujarat Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2017, and quashed the closure of the petitioner's online account. It also directed the release of the seized boat and equipment and instructed the petitioner to file a reply to the notice with sufficient opportunity to be heard.
Issues: Violation of natural justice, non-compliance with statutory rules, and seizure of property without FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent authority's actions were not justified as they did not comply with the statutory rules and principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The petition was partly allowed, and the court quashed the closure of the online account, directed the release of the seized property, and instructed the petitioner to file a reply to the notice with sufficient opportunity to be heard.
ORDER :
1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Hardik Mehta waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State authorities.
2. With consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
(b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the illegal action of the respondents of closing down the online account of issuance of delivery challan pass in respect of quarry lease for ordinary sand situated opposite Survey No. 104 to 107 at village Pratappura, Taluka Umreth, District Anand.
(bb) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 29.03.2022 received by the petitioner on 09.04.2022.
(bbb) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the action of the respondent no. 3 of illegally seizing boat with other material from the lease area of the petitioner on 07.04.2022.
(bbbb) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the for release of the boat along with the machinery seized on 07.04.2022.
(c) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, direct the respondent no. 3 to immediately open the online account of issuance of delivery challan pass in respect of quarry lease for ordinary sand situated opposite Survey No. 104 to 107 at village Pratappura, Taluka Umreth, District Anand.
(cc) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, stay the implementation and operation of the notice dated 29.03.2022 received by the petitioner on 09.04.2022.”
(d) Grant such other and further relief as thought fit in the interest of justice.”
4.1 It is the grievance of learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Shah assisted by learned advocate Ms. Pandya that the petitioner was granted lease opposite to Survey No. 104 to 107 admeasuring 01-00-00 Hec. Are. Sq mtr for ordinary sand at village Pratappura, Taluka Umreth, District Anand vide order dated 27.06.1995 and the same was extended upto 31.03.2022.
4.2 It is the case of the petitioner that without issuing any notice or without informing the petitioner, in any manner, online account of issuance of royalty pass for the lease having No. QL2207005414 was closed down w.e.f. 10.02.2022.
4.3 Though the petitioner made detailed representation against the said action vide representation dated 21.03.2022, the same was not considered by the respondent authorities. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that even thereafter by acting highhandedly the respondent seized boat and other materials on 07.04.2022 and though the aforesaid boat was seized by the respondent authorities, no FIR was registered though the period of 45 days from the date on which the said boat was seized was over long back. The petitioner also raised grievance that as per Rule 43 of the Gujarat Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2017, 60 days notice is required to be given to the petitioner. However, as against that, respondents have given a notice dated 29.03.2022 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why his lease should not be cancelled and directed the petitioner to submit his reply within a period of one week before 07.04.2022 and hence the present petition is preferred.
5.1 Learned advocate Ms.Shah pointed out that thereafter vide order dated 15.06.2022, the coordinate Bench of this Court granted ad interim relief in terms of Para 8(cc) in favour of the petitioner, which reads as under, which is still operating in favour of the petitioner:
Compliance with statutory rules and principles of natural justice is essential in administrative actions.
Locking an online ATR account without notice or order violates the principles of natural justice and the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Mineral Rules.
The court emphasized that administrative actions must comply with established procedural rules, directing the reopening of an ATR account locked contrary to Rule 5.
respondent authorities have failed to justify the reason for seizure of the truck in question. When the respondent authorities have failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 2017, ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.