Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Guj) 817

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.
Hargovindbhai Somabhai Patel, Since Decd. Through Legal Heirs Umeshbhai Hargovindbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondents
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20361 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20379 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20400 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20404 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20405 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20402 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20407 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20408 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20410 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20409 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20417 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20406 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20418 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20415 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20411 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20412 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20414 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20413 of 2018 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20403 of 2018
Decided on : 25-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR. Y.N. OZA, senior counsel assisted by MR HJ DHOLAKIA
For the Respondent: MS. DHWANI TRIPATHI

IMPORTANT POINT
The decision to decline the renewal of the mining lease was upheld by the court, citing environmental concerns and the area being declared a 'No Mining Zone' through a notification dated 07.07.2017. The GMMCR Rules, 2017, which came into effect from 24.05.2017, governed the renewal process, rendering the applications ineligible.

Headnote:
Natural Justice - Mining Lease Renewal - GMMCR Rules, 2017 - The court dismissed the petitions seeking renewal of mining lease, as the area had been declared a 'No Mining Zone' by the State through a notification dated 07.07.2017. The court held that the report of the Committee, though not binding on the Collector, provided sufficient grounds to decline the renewal. The GMMCR Rules, 2017, which came into effect from 24.05.2017, governed the renewal process, rendering the applications ineligible. The court found no legal malice in the amendments to the rules and upheld the decision of the authorities.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought renewal of a mining lease granted since 2002-03, which was declined by the authorities citing environmental damage and the area being declared a 'No Mining Zone' through a notification dated 07.07.2017.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decision to decline the renewal was in the public interest, as the mining activity had caused environmental damage and the area had been declared a 'No Mining Zone'. The GMMCR Rules, 2017, which came into effect from 24.05.2017, governed the renewal process, rendering the applications ineligible.
Issues: The main issue was the refusal of the authorities to renew the mining lease, citing environmental concerns and the area being declared a 'No Mining Zone' through a notification dated 07.07.2017.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decision to decline the renewal was in the public interest, as the mining activity had caused environmental damage and the area had been declared a 'No Mining Zone'. The GMMCR Rules, 2017, which came into effect from 24.05.2017, governed the renewal process, rendering the applications ineligible.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions seeking renewal of mining lease, as the area had been declared a 'No Mining Zone' by the State through a notification dated 07.07.2017. The court found no legal malice in the amendments to the rules and upheld the decision of the authorities.

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 bridge upstream and downstream.

3.2. By letter dated 14.06.2004, the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam had put a ban in the area 500 meters from the siphon structure and at present also the ban is in force and there is no lease granted within the vicinity of 500 meters. The present petitioner – lease-holder was carrying on mining activity, from a distance of 500 meters from the siphon structure. The prohibition of sand mining within the said wisdom has been forced and till date there is no illegal mining done by the petitioner – lease- holder. Besides, the Narmada Nigam had put its security personnel 24 hours Nr. Narmada Canal, and therefore, the Representation made by the Corporation and the statement of Corporation as stated in news-article dated 09.02.2016 with respect to leakage in the siphon structure, due to illegal sand mining at Karai, is totally false.

3.3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the aforesaid, the Collector i.e. the respondent No.2 directed for detailed inquiry.

3.4. The petitioner applied for renewal of lease in the year 2014, the respondent authority had not renewed the lease of the petitioner, on the basis of article of the newspaper, and hence, the petitioner had filed a detailed representation on 31.03.2016. 3.5. It is the case of the petitioner that the State Government had issued the guidelines on the basis of the Public Interest Litigation filed before the Hon’ble High Court and in this regard, a Notification came to be issued 20.01.2014.

3.6. The Respondent No.2 – the Collector vide order dated 18.04.2016, after constituted a committee to assess the impact on various structures located in gorge portion of River-Sabarmati between Lekawada and Vasna Barrage (40 K.M.), due consultation with the lease-holder, comprising of the Chief Engineer of Narmada Nigam, who was Chairman of the Committee, Executive Engineer, Capital Project Division No.3, Director, Gujarat Police Academy, Karai, Superintendent Engineer, Design (Road and Building) Circle, Gandhinagar, Representative of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation and Geologist. The said Team submitted a fact based report, within two months, after site inspection and till then, there was suspension of mining in the said area from Santsarovar Dam to Vasna Barrage i.e. about 11 k.m. area.

3.7. Because of the aforesaid action on the part of respondent No.2, the petitioner and similarly situated persons approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.9921 of 2016. By order dated 21.03.2017, the respondent authority was directed to decide the issue, in pursuance to the order dated 18.04.2016 passed by respondent No.2- District Collector, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 31st May, 2017 and inform the decision to the petitioner, copy of the said ord