The reviewing authority must consider all permissible contentions and take an independent decision based on the available record and without being influenced by the disposal of the petition.

ORDER :

1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought for following reliefs:

(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the communication dated 26.04.2017 holding the same to be illegal, unjust and arbitrary.

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing Respondent No. 3 to implement the order dated 11.05.2016 passed by Respondent No. 2 in its true letter and spirit as expeditiously as possible.

(D) Pending admission, hearing and disposal of the appeal, YOUR LORDSHIPS may by pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 not to allot the quarry lease about the area in question to any other person.

(E) Grant such other and further reliefs in favour of petitioner as may be deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is resident of village Chital, Taluka Amreli and was interested in obtaining quarry lease for the purpose of mining sand at village Shihod, Taluka Jetpur Pavi, District Vadodara and accordingly, made an application in proscribed form before Collector, Vadodara. Petitioner in turn received a letter dated 4.10.2010 calling upon the petitioner to remove deficits and infirmities in the application which the petitioner has removed. However, the request for application for quarry lease came to be rejected vide order dated 27.4.2011 mainly on the reason that defects in the application were not cured.

3. Aggrieved by the said decision, petitioner preferred a revision application before the Appellate Authority, i.e. respondent No. 2, on 20.6.2011 and said revision application came to be allowed vide order dated 11.5.2016 substantially on the ground that since deficiencies in the application were cured on 24.12.2010, which was not reflecting in the impugned order of the Collector, the revision application was allowed. Pursuant to the said order passed in revision application, a mere paper work was to be undertaken after completion of necessary formalities, but there was no response from the respondent authority in any form and as such when insisted upon, petitioner received a letter on 11.9.2017 from Geologist, Chhota Udepur, informing the petitioner that it is not possible to implement the order of the Appellate Authority and said order deserves to be taken in review by the Appellate Authority and as such a letter dated 26.4.2017 addressed by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2 was supplied and as such, since petitioner is fighting legal battle from the year 2010 and was in receipt of such kind of communication, instead of implementing the order of Appellate Authority, left with no alternate but to approach this Court by way of afore-mentioned petition.

4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned advocate Mr. Apurva K. Jani appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was waiting for quite some time to see that the order passed by Appellate Authority would be implemented. But, instead of implementing, though there is no power of review, subordinate authority has issued impugned communication whereby it appears to the petitioner that request would be rejected despite the order being passed in his favour. Mr. Jani has further submitted that it has come to the notice of petitioner that in very same Survey number after filing of present petition, the authority has granted lease to one person, a copy whereof is very much available to the petitioner and as such has submitted that discriminatory stand has been taken by the authority, hence the communication under challenge requires to be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Jani has fur