VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Hargovindbhai Somabhai Patel, Since Decd. Through Legal Heirs Umeshbhai Hargovindbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Issue RULE, returnable forthwith. Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State authorities.
2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present petitions are taken-up for final hearing. Since in all the group of matters, common question of law involved, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, Special Civil Application No. 20361 of 2018 is treated as lead matter and facts are taken from the said Petition.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Petition reads thus:
3.1. The petitioner herein was granted lease since 2002-03, which came to be renewed from time to time from Sant Sarovar Dam to Koteshwar Mining work, which was being carried-out in proper manner as prescribed under the Rules, Regulations, Circulars and directions issued by the State Government as well as issued by the Competent Authority. The lease was allotted to the petitioner after maintaining the distance 1000 meters from the dam (upstream and downstream) 500 meters. From the canal, upstream and downstream and 200 meters from the brid
BPL Ltd. v. S.P. Gururaja [(2003) 8 SCC 567]
Canara Bank vs. Debasis Das reported in (2003) 4 SCC 557
Hughes v. Department of Health and Social Security, 1985 AC 776
Kerala State Beverages (M AND M) Corporation Limited v. P.P. Suresh
Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania
Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India
Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar [(2006) 8 SCC 381 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1986]
State of T.N. v. Hind Stone (1981) 2 SCC 205
State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone & Others
Sulekhan Singh and Company and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (AIR 2016 SC 228)
S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India [(1979) 2 SCC 491 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 216 : AIR 1979 SC 49]
State of A.P. v. Goverdhanlal Pitti [(2003) 4 SCC 739 : AIR 2003 SC 1941]
Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn. [(1993) 3 SCC 499]
W.B. SEB v. Dilip Kumar Ray [(2007) 14 SCC 568 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 860].
The renewal of a mining lease must comply with procedural requirements, including consultation with the Gram Panchayat and conducting a Joint Inspection as mandated by applicable rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application of Rule 29(1) and Rule 29(2) of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, determines the eligibility of pending applic....
The application for renewal of a mining lease must be considered according to the rules in force at the time of disposal, and the reduction of the mining area must be in compliance with the relevant ....
The court affirmed that applications for quarry leases must comply with statutory rules, and administrative instructions cannot override these provisions.
A mining lease holder must obtain Environmental Clearance before commencing operations, and failure to do so precludes any extension of the lease period under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession R....
The cancellation of the mining lease was found to be in accordance with the statutory provision of Rule 25(5) of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
There cannot be a collateral challenge to an order by a respondent in a writ proceeding instituted by a petitioner for implementation of such order.
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.