The classification of land and the applicable rules for quarry lease applications were central to the court's decision.

ORDER :

1. Learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to amend the prayer clause. Permission is granted.

2.1 By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the Collector, Tapi rejecting the allotment of quarry lease to the petitioner.

2.2 The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority in Revision Application No.R/867/Tapi so also the order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the Member Secretary (Review Committee) and Deputy Secretary, Industries and Mines Department, State of Gujarat confirming the order dated 30.03.2022 passed in Appeal.

3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner applied grant of quarry lease for black trap from land bearing Survey No.160/2 paiki, admeasuring 10-00-00 Hec.Are.Sq mtr situated at Village Amli, TalSongadh, Dist.Tapi. The said application was made on 23.10.2008.

3.2 Vide order dated 31.03.2011, the Collector, Tapi rejected the aforesaid application of the petitioner for grant of quarry lease and hence the petitioner preferred Revision Application before the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Industries and Mines Department, which was allowed vide order dated 19.11.2016 by the Revisional Authority and the same was remanded back to the Collector with a direction to decide the application of the petitioner within 45 days.

3.2 Though no order was passed within period of 45 days, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.6763 of 2017 seeking direction to the Collector, Tapi to comply with the order passed on 19.11.2016 by the Revisional Authority. The said writ petition is disposed of vide order dated 03.05.2017 with a direction to Collector to decide the case of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible but not later than 31.07.2017.

3.3 Since despite the direction issued by this Court, the application of the petitioner remained undecided, the petitioner preferred second petition being Special Civil Application No.18402 of 2018 and the said petition was also disposed of vide order dated 25.02.2019 with a direction to decide the application of the petitioner within a period of four weeks.

3.4 Ultimately, the Collector, Tapi decided the application of the petitioner vide order dated 01.07.2019 by taking into consideration the fact that the land for which the petitioner applied for quarry lease was Gauchar land and, therefore, the same cannot be granted to the present petitioner for the purpose of quarry lease.

3.5 The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 01.07.2019 by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority, however, the Appellate Authority and Deputy Secretary (Industries) vide order dated 30.03.2021 confirmed the said order which was once again challenged before the Review Committee by the petitioner and even Review Committee also rejected the review application of the petitioner vide order dated 31.05.2022 and confirmed the order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Pathik Acharya for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the application of the petitioner made in the year 2008 has remained undecided till date as in the year 2016 when the Revisional Authority remanded the matter back to the Collector and directed him to decide the application of the petitioner within a period of 45 days, the Collector did not decide the matter within 45 days. The matter remained pending before the Collector and in the meantime the Rules governing the allotment of quarry lease were changed. Earlier Mines and Mineral (Concession) Rules 2010 (‘2010, Rules’, for short) were in force whereas from 24.05.2017 new rules i.e. Mines and Mineral (Concession) Rules 2017 (‘2017, Rules’, for short) came into force.

4.2 However, it is the case of Mr.Acharya that the application of the petitioner was required to be considered as per ‘2010, Rules’ and not as per ‘2017, Rules’ considering the fa