IMPORTANT POINT
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 applications for renewal of quarry leases, and the absence of prior written approval or a Letter of Intent renders the application ineligible.

JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

The intra-court appeal filed by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby a direction has been given to consider the application for renewal of quarry lease of the petitioner as ‘saved case’ and to decide the same by the Collector within the time given therein. The learned single Judge has opined that the case of the petitioner has to be considered as a ‘saved case’ as the order in revision dated 19.06.2014 was passed in favour of the petitioner, but it was not acted upon by the respondent authorities during the time when 2017 Rules namely Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (in short as the ‘Rules 2017’) replaced the earlier Rules namely Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2010. It is noted by the learned single Judge that it was not the fault of the petitioner that the petitioner could not submit an environment clearance certificate in time.

2. A brief narration of facts relevant to decide the controversy are necessary to be noted at the inception. The respondent herein namely the original petitioner was granted quarry lease of ordinary sand vide agreement dated 23.04.2007 for a period of three years. When the lease was about to expire on 24.04.2010, an application was made by the petitioner for the purpose of extension of the order, which was rejected by the Collector vide order dated 15.09.2010 on the ground that the said application was made after a delay of 178 days and was in complete violation of the then existing rules. The original petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Collector dated 15.09.2010, which was allowed by the order dated 7.7.2012 and the matter was remanded back while quashing the order of the Collector, for fresh consideration. Again vide order dated 22.7.2013, the District Collector rejected the application of the petitioner, which gave rise to the Revision Application filed by the original petitioner before the Secretary, Mining Department. The Revisional Authority vide order dated 19.06.2014 condoned the delay of 178 days and directed that the proceedings for renewal of quarry lease be initiated. However, the fact remains that the quarry lease could not be granted to the petitioner despite various communications between the authorities, and in the meantime, 2017 Rules came into force.

3. It is brought on the record of the writ petition that in the interregnum after passing of the order dated 19.06.2014 by the Revisional Authority, the Geologist had intimated, on 9.12.2015, to the petitioner to pay the penalty of Rs. 5000/- and to submit environmental clearance certificate and mining plan for further process. Certain clarification was also sought by the Collector about the order dated 19.06.2014 passed by the Revisional Authority. The petitioner presented mining plan in the office of Geologist after payment of Rs. 5000/- as penalty. Vide communication dated 22.09.2016, the petitioner was asked to give the bank guarantee as well as cure the defects in respect of the mining plan. The defects were removed whereafter the mining plan was approved by the Geologist vide order dated 04.03.2017 which was communicated to the original petitioner. On 5.4.2016, the petitioner had applied online for grant of environment clearance certificate.

4. It is stated in the writ petition that on various occasions, hearing was granted by the office of the Collector, but no final decision had been taken. Environment clearance certificate was not granted by the competent authority. The contention is that for the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in implementing the order of the Revisional Authority dated 19.06.2014, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer, inasmuch as, the petitioner had complied with the conditions of execution of the agreement for renewal of the mining lease for a period of three years, by submission of the mining plan, bank guarantee and on-line application seeking