IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sangeeta K. Vishen, J.
Devendrasinh Ishversinh Parmar – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 11580 of 2024
Decided On : 07-08-2024
Minerals - Quarry Lease - Gujarat Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2017 - The court interpreted Rules 12 and 29, emphasizing that only existing leases prior to the Rules' commencement are eligible for extension, influencing the dismissal of the petitioner's claims.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to continue online royalty passes for a quarry lease, claiming it was extended under the Gujarat Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2017. The lease was executed after the rules came into effect, leading to a dispute over its eligibility for extension.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's lease did not qualify for extension under the relevant rules, as it was not in currency before the rules' commencement. The court upheld the interpretation from a similar case, reinforcing the ineligibility of the petitioner's claims.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's quarry lease, executed after the commencement of the Gujarat Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2017, is eligible for extension under the rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that only quarry leases granted or renewed before the commencement of the Rules of 2017 are eligible for extension under Rule 12, and the petitioner's lease did not meet this criterion.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
Sangeeta K. Vishen, J.
1. The petitioner, in the captioned writ petition seeks direction to the respondent authorities to continue the on-line royalty passes with respect to the lease in question of the petitioner. The petitioner also prays for declaration that the lease of the petitioner being falling under sub-rule (3) of Rule 29 of the Gujarat Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2017") is deemed to have been extended as per the provisions of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 2017 upto 31.03.2025.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in tune with the applicable rules, the petitioner had applied for quarry lease for excavation of ordinary sand with respect to village Jhakhla Taluka: Mandvi District: Gandhinagar. Apropos the application, the letter of intent (hereinafter referred to as "the LOI") came to be issued on 02.07.2016 followed by grant order on 02.01.2019 and it is thereafter, that the lease was executed on 21.05.2019. It is the case of the petitioner that the State Government has framed the Rules of 2017 which, came into operation on and from 24.05.2017, and as per the provisions of Rule 29, the case of the petitioner would fall within the category of “saved cases”. Since the case of the petitioner, is covered within the category of “saved cases”, it is incumbent upon the authorities to consider the explanation of lease as per clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 and not as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 2017. Hence, the action of abrupt discontinuance of the issuance of royalty passes by the authorities is illegal and against the provisions of the Rules of 2017. Hence, the captioned writ petition.
3. Mr.Satyam Chhaya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the captioned writ petition is identical to the issue raised and decided in the case of Shree Dhara Minerals and Mines vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. in Special Civil Application No. 8850 of 2022 and allied matters and would be governed by the common oral judgment dated 26.07.2024 passed by this Court. It is therefore urged that appropriate orders be passed.
4. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the documents available on record.
5. It is not in dispute that the issues and grievances raised in the captioned writ petition are similar to those in the case of Shree Dhara Minerals and Mines (supra). The captioned writ petition, would be governed by the judgment passed in the said group of writ petitions. This Court in the said case, has held and observed that clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 is a provision extending the period of the quarry leases which are either “granted or renewed” before the commencement of the Rules of 2017 i.e. 24.05.2017. It has been held and observed that clause (b) of sub- rule (1) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 2017 would apply only to the cases wherein, the lease is granted and is in currency, prior to the coming into force of the Rules of 2017. While also considering the provisions of Rule 29, it has been pointed out that on and after the date of commencement of the Rules of 2017, all the quarry leases in respect of minor minerals specified, would be governed by sub- rule (3) of Rule 12 read with Rule 29 of the Rules of 2017 for a period of five years only and those cases, after expiry of five years, would be governed as per the Rules of 2017 i.e. by auction, which is the principal object behind the Rules. Paragraphs 16 to 26 of the case of Shree Dhara Minerals and Mines (supra) are extracted hereinbelow for the ease of reference:
“12. Period of the quarry lease.-
(1) In case of:
(a) all minor minerals specified in Part A-II or Part B of Schedule III, the period of quarry lease granted or renewed before the date of commencement of these rules, shall be extended and be deemed to have been extended up to a pe
Only quarry leases granted or renewed before the commencement of the Gujarat Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2017 are eligible for extension under Rule 12.
Only existing quarry leases granted before the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, can be extended under Rule 12, affecting the petitioner's claim.
Only existing quarry leases prior to the commencement of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 are eligible for extension under the specified provisions.
The court affirmed that applications for quarry leases must comply with statutory rules, and administrative instructions cannot override these provisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation and application of Rule 29 of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2017, in directing the government to issue an....
The Granite Rules, 1999 prevail over the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1996 and the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Auction Rules, 2022 in the event of repugnancy.
Point of Law : Orders and actions of the authorities cannot be equated to the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts nor can they be elevated to the level of the precedents, as understood in ....
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.